Ancient History
Alan
local Seattle newspaper, concerning a new offshore cruising boat that
was being built at Miller Marine Construction on Bainbridge Island.
This was in December of 1975, I believe. I had done a lot of racing
the previous three years, including about 8,000 miles offshore. I
wanted my own offshore boat but decided that I would not be able to
afford to race it, hence I was looking for a boat that was rugged,
dependable, and one that could carry a lot of weight. I had also
enrolled in a mail-order sailboat design school run by Ted Brewer, so
I was quite a Brewer fan.
The day I chose to venture into the forests of Bainbridge Island, I
was fortunate to find Al Pertner up on a scaffold in a very cold shed
using a long sanding board to fair the plug upon which the original
Jason mold was soon to be laid up. Al explained the situation. His
dream was to sail around Cape Horn and he needed a very special boat
to carry him. He had commissioned Ted Brewer to design such a boat
for one-off construction. Al then built the hull using Cflex, a
system that employed fiberglass planks, somewhat reminiscent of wooden
boat construction. Unfortunately, Al's hull was not at all fair.
What was Al pertner to do? At the time he worked as a telephone
lineman out of Bremerton, Washington, which is near Bainbridge Island,
and was aware of the Miller yard. He approached Earl Miller and
proposed that Miller use his imperfect hull as the plug for a female
mold and then to place the boat in serial production. After some
consideration, Pertner and Miller struck a bargain. Earl would teach
Al how to use micro-balloons to fair the hull. Earl would be the
judge of when the plug was sufficiently fair and sufficiently close to
the lines that Brewer had designed before they would proceed to lay up
a mold. Al was also responsible for getting a non-refundable deposit
of $500 from ten potential buyers.
I have studied the hulls of many cruising sailboats, both in and out
of the water. To my satisfaction, I have noticed that the Jason hull
is one of the fairest cruising hulls in existence. I believe there
are two reasons for that. The first is that Earl Miller was a racer
and nearly all the boats that his yard had built up until that time
were intended either exclusively for racing or for racing and
cruising, unlike so many of the heavy offshore cruising boats for
which speed was a secondary consideration. The other reason is that
he paid almost nothing for all the many, many hours that Al Pertner
spent fairing the plug.
For his troubles, Al Pertner was to get a hull for "free". As it
turned out, Al's hull was the second out of the mold, because the
"perfect" customer materialized and demanded the first slot in return
for the first $500 deposit. This was a gentleman who had made a lot
of money in the real-estate boom in California, had moved up to the
Kitsap Peninsula where real-estate values were still low intending to
make lots more money, and decided that a sailboat would fit his new
Pacific Northwest life style. This man knew absolutely nothing about
boats but had plenty of dollars. Perfect.
The real-estate tycoon could afford to have Miller build the complete
boat, including a beautiful teak toe rail and custom interior.
Against Earl Miller's advice, he choose a black hull. (Earl said that
white was the only good color for a boat, but that black was the very
worst). He also had the foundry in Port Townsend cast custom end
brackets for the Colin Archer inspired washboards shown in the Brewer
design.
I do not know how long the real-estate tycoon owned the "black Jason",
whether he ever learned to sail, or when he finally got rid of the
boat. A couple of years ago, I met another man who for several years
had been its owner. He said it was a nice boat but had some
problems. The mast was too far aft, in the position that Brewer had
erroneously drawn it, causing serious weather helm. It also floated
too low in the water, due to it having 1000 pounds more lead ballast
than Brewer had specified. More recently I have heard that the "black
Jason" is somewhere in Kitsap County, nearly a derelict, but I cannot
confirm this report.
Jason was the name of Al Pertner's boat, the second hull out of the
mold. Even before that hull was laid up, Al displayed a serious lack
of understanding of boats and sailing, a failing he shared with most
of the original Jason owners. Brewer had provided two sets of
scantlings. One set was for a hull with balsa core, which of course
reduced the thickness of the fiberglass required and consequently the
weight. The other set was for a solid fiberglass hull. Al decided
that he wanted both the balsa and the thicker fiberglass. When it
came to pouring the ballast, Al loaded in 1000 pounds of lead in
excess of what Brewer had specified. The extra 1000 pounds in the
"black Jason" was also undoubtedly due to Al Pertner's influence over
the real-estate tycoon.
Because Al Pertner planned to round Cape Horn and due to several
reports of boats being dismasted and crushed by "rogue" waves in the
"roaring forties", Al started to doubt Brewer's design, even with the
extra-thick fiberglass and extra lead. With the exception of Al's
Jason, all of the first 10 boats had oblong bronze port lights which
Earl Miller was able to purchase in bulk so as to pass along some
savings to the boat owners. These ports are very stout, about 5" x
14", but they were too large for Al. Instead, he used circular bronze
non-opening ports holes, 5" in diameter, fearing that the larger ports
would be stove in if Jason were ever rolled. Next Al started to worry
about the strength of the coach roof. When Jason rolled, he did not
want the roof to give. For added insurance, Al took cardboard tubing,
slit it lengthwise, glued a half-tube athwartships every foot along
the under-side of the roof, then glassed them over. While Al had
originally had standing head-room in Jason, he now had to stoop. He
invited me into Jason to admire his enhancements. It was like
entering a cave.
Eventually, even Al Pertner realized that he had gone too far with his
modifications of Ted Brewer's design. He managed to rid himself of
this embarrassment by selling Jason to a man from San Francisco, who
trucked the incomplete boat away. I do not know if it ever sailed,
but if it did, San Francisco with its ample supply of wind would have
been a good place for it.
After that Al gave up his career as a phone company lineman and became
a yacht salesman. There certainly was a logic to this, since he had
gotten 10 customers to give him $500 deposits on a boat that was at
the time no more than an unfair plug, and he had sold the original
Jason in spite of its flaws. I heard that after several years selling
boats, Al had saved enough money to buy another Jason hull. I do not
know if it was ever completed or if Al Pertner ever rounded Cape Horn.
On a sunny afternoon in the autumn of 1976, when most of the original
10 owners of Jason sailboats were at the Miller yard, either working
on their own boats or checking up on work that was being done for them
by Earl Miller's crew, Earl came around to announce that he was
considering changing the name that the boat had at the time, which was
Miller 34, to Jason 35, due to marketing considerations. He solicited
opinions of owners.
Some, like myself, felt the change was inappropriate. I argued that
the nautical tradition favored understatement and that the British
still referred to boats by water-line length rather length overall.
Others argued that they would have to pay more for guest moorage if
the boat was a 35 footer rather than a 34 footer. The real-estate
tycoon, on the other hand, was very keen on the change because it
would increase the value of his "investment". My boat, Norwegian
Steam, measures a few inches less than 35 feet, if you are just
measuring fiberglass. There was never any thought of actually
modifying the mold in order to increase the length to be consistent
with the marketing claim. In any case, from a sailing point of view,
it is the water line length and the lines of the hull that count, not
the length of the deck. Some Jasons, which had serious weather helm
due to a mast placed too far aft in accordance with Brewer's original
faulty specification, have added bowsprits to reduce the tendency to
turn to windward. How long are they?
Miller Marine Construction did both one-off construction and serial
construction of sailboats, as well as renting space to do-it-yourself
builders and taking a commission for obtaining boat parts at a good
price. Miller Marine had originally been the Buchan Boat Company,
founded by Bill Buchan, Sr. as a sideline in order to better support
his sailboat racing activities. For awhile, at the end of the CCA
racing era, the Buchan 37 was the most successful racer-cruiser in the
Northwest. Bill Sr., Bill Jr., and John Buchan all raced Buchan
37's. In almost any race, a Buchan boat and skipper was the winner.
Others bought Buchan 37's but generally did not do so well. When Earl
Miller married Bill Buchan's daughter, Buchan Boat became Miller
Marine, Earl became the president, and Mrs. Miller became the business
manager.
In addition to the Buchan 37, Miller had several other boats in serial
production, including several racer-cruisers, one which was about 28'
LOA and another about 50' LOA. They also had a mold for a Star racing
boat and continued to supply the needs of the Buchan family who were
world class competitors in the Star Class.
Before I committed my $500 as a deposit on a Jason hull, I had a 25'
foot boat. One of my neighbors on the dock, Jerre Noe, had just
purchased a Miller 28, completely built and finished by Miller
Marine. Jerre was the Head of the Computer Science Department at the
University of Washington at the time, a brilliant and delightful man,
and the fact that he had only good things to day about Miller Marine
and about Earl Miller, was more than anything else what convinced me
to commit to a Jason.
draco
Thanks for taking us on a great walk down a hither-to unknown part of
Memory Lane. It's a little humbling to hear the true origins of our
beautiful boats.
I'm still holding firmly - desperately - to the notion of a second
mold...!
Other than not being very fair in its original incarnation, do you
have any
idea of how closely Pertner's hull adhered to Brewer's lines?
I'm still puzzled by the existence of what seems to be two different
LOAs for the Jasons
(some at 34'6" - 34'9", and some - including Draco - at a full 35').
Also, I see Brewer's website has a photo of a black Jason. Could it
be...?
Thanks again -
Frank
S/V Draco
Alan
I believe that Al Pertner's hull was very fair and adhered closely to
Brewer's lines after he faired it with micro balloons under Earl
Miller's direction and to Earl's satisfaction. The resulting mold
was, therefore, equally fair and precise.
I really doubt that there was more than one mold. There would have
been no reason for this.
A discrepancy of 3 inches in 35 feet is not great. I believe that
these small differences can be explained in several ways:
1. A boat changes shape, including overall length, depending on
whether it is in the water or out of the water and even, when in the
water how heavily it is loaded and when out of the water, how it is
supported.
2. The length may even depend a bit on temperature.
3. The overall length will also depend on rigging tension.
4. It is hard to measure the overall length exactly, given that the
house is in the way.
The last time I measured Norwegian Steam, I believe I got 34' 9". My
rigging is quite tight, set up in accordance to the rules of thumb in
one of Brion Toss' books. Brion is an advocate of tight rigging. If
your rigging is looser, for instance, or if you measured out of the
water, I can well believe that it is 35' long.
On the "Lines Drawing", sheet 1 of the Owner's Plans, Brewer states
that the LOA is 34' 6-1/4", and the LWL is 27' 4". When I measure the
same drawings, I get slightly different lengths.
In my experience, nothing about boats, even plastic boats, is exact or
constant or completely symmetrical. For me, boats are "living things"
and that is a large part of their appeal.
-- Alan
Alan
As for the black (possibly dark blue?) Jason on Ted Brewer's web site,
I do not think that it is hull #1. If I recall, the first Jason had a
fiberglass house and it appears that the boat in the picture has one
of wood. Jason #1 also had teak washboards, supported by bronze end
fittings which were cast at the foundry in Port Townsend. The massive
size of those bronze fittings and the washboards made the boat look a
bit like a toy tug boat. It was very nicely finished, however.
-- Alan
On Mar 8, 2:59 pm, draco <fitz...@optonline.net> wrote:
draco
I appreciate your insight into the history of the Jasons and, while I
mostly agree in principle on your points about lengths and such, there
are a few issues I want to push around a bit.
First, the drawings -
I understand what you're saying about scaling the LOA (or anything
else) from the drawings - and I'm sure you know you're not supposed to
scale paper drawings - for the very reason you cited: the whole
drawing changes in physical size from one day to the next. (The only
drawings you might scale - and then with great caution - are mylars.
Even then, it's risky.) The only dimensions we can rely on are those
actually printed on the drawing - the purpose of the drawing itself is
mainly to show what part of the object the printed dimensions refer
to, not to provide other places to measure. Scaling paper drawings is
not a good idea - and certainly not an indication that something is
right or wrong. So it's not surprising that scaling on different days
gives different lengths. The important thing about the Jason drawing
is the printed dimension - 34' 6-1/4". Whatever you may scale makes
no difference in what size the boat is supposed to be - if built to
that drawing: 34' 6-1/4". (I think I mentioned scaling this very
drawing in another post here, and I added the caveat that it was a
scaled measurement, and not to be depended upon.)
Next, the variations -
I agree that boats- or molds - rarely adhere exactly to the designer's
plans. However, in good practice, if a series of boats are laid up in
a mold and decked before being pulled from the mold, they will be
quite close, from one to the next - within fractions of an inch.
From my limited experience, 3" - 6" in a 35' boat is a pretty big
difference, and not one for which I would pass the blame to subsequent
differences in support, temperature or rigging tension. (I could
understand it if the hull were pulled green and set in a poorly-fitted
cradle before being decked - then all bets are off. But even then,
for the LOA to change by 3" - 6", some other dimension(s) - beam or
shear - would also have to change by a number of inches - and, in
either case, the deck clearly wouldn't fit right.
As I mentioned before, Draco's deck was bonded on while the hull was
still in the mold. Earl said that was the only way he would ship it.
- he would not ship the two separately, or just strapped together -
because he wanted to ensure the hull remained in the correct shape. I
don't know that this is the case for all the Jason's, and I understand
the mold has been in the hands of several people. So I cannot say
there were no hulls pulled and shipped green with no deck to keep
their shape.
Considering the rigidity that the deck adds to the hull, especially in
the longitudinal plane of the deck itself, changes in LOA are probably
the most difficult to cause. Yes, continual over-tensioning of the
rigging can cause detectable changes in sheer (several inches if you
over-do it on a lightly built boat) but, considering the geometry, the
resulting change in LOA would be almost immeasurable). Similarly for
changes in support - they may cause noticeable dents and bulges, maybe
even hogging or sagging by an inch or more - in the transverse shape
of the hull, but probably still not a noticeable change in the LOA.
Certainly not 3" - 6" in a 35' boat. I find it very difficult to
believe that the external forces you mention would have any measurable
effect of the LOA. Beam? - possibly - Draft ?- definitely. LOA ?-
not in my experience.
You are right about accurately measuring the LOA - the house makes
direct measurement of the LOA virtually impossible. But no problem -
just level the hull, and measure it between perpendiculars. (I tried
establishing perpendiculars with a plumb bob, but was worried about
breezes not letting it settle, so I enlisted a friend - a professional
surveyor - to drop the points with a transit. Probably overkill, but
he was there...) LOA came to 35' within a minor fraction of an inch.
Max beam (not at deck level) came to 11'2". (One thing I did notice
while a'building - but didn't have my surveyor friend to verify -
there seems to be about 1" - 2" more sheer than Brewer's measurements
show, and using the bottom of the keel as a horizontal reference, it
appears to be mostly at the bow. Some measurements also seem to
indicate that the upper part of Draco's stem has slightly less
curvature and is slightly further from vertical than shown on Brewer's
drawing. I don't know if this is an inheritance from Pertner's work,
or if that's where the additional length came from. 'Tis a
puzzlement!) Also, when fitting bulkheads, it was obvious that there
were small differences in transverse hull shape from port to
starboard. No big deal - I just wish I know which tack that was
supposed to make her faster on...!
Lastly, the mold(s?) -
So far as not being a second mold, you are probably correct. However,
there could be several reasons why a second mold could have been
made. The most likely is the original simply wore out. We're
talking about a fair number of hulls over a relatively long period of
time. It's difficult to make the tooling surface last through that
amount of exposure and use. (We pulled a series of 22' gaff-rigged
sloop hulls from a professional mold over 3 years, and only got 11
hulls before it started getting too rough. But that was partly due to
outside storage and some non-professional "help"...) Once the tooling
surface fails, it's difficult to repair and still get a satisfactory
finish. The common solution is often to make a whole new mold. (Our
solution was to quit!) A big-league production mold will last 100 or
more hulls. But it's built by professionals at that job - not to
disparage Earl's crew - and constantly in use. (Note - there were
reports of a Jason mold in Canada about 10 years ago, and the
possibility of one in Maryland within the last few years - the
original would be 35+ years old by now, and that's a LONG time for a
mold...!)
Finally, I agree with your sentiments that boats are living things and
should be savored for their differences. On the other hand, I am an
engineer, and while I appreciate the differences, I also want to know
exactly where they are...!
Thanks again for your insights - I printed the history you wrote and
have it in my Jason file aboard the boat.
Frank
S/V Draco
Alan
I am not trying to say anything about the difference between the
length measured on the lines drawing and the LOA stated in a table on
the same drawing. I do, however, suspect that getting fair lines was
much more important than getting an exact LOA, since a few inches in
LOA is inconsequential to the eventual performance of a boat.
I also did not want to imply that the error in measurement of a hull
cannot be less than three inches. Considering however that the
various LOA measurements that have been reported were made by
different people with different skills and in different circumstances,
discrepancies of a few inches are not surprising. If you were to
measure Norwegian Steam, I would not be astonished if you were to
conclude that its LOA is 35 feet.
I don't think that Miller's deck bonding process has much bearing on
the LOA non-issue, but for the record, Miller lifted hulls out of the
mold and placed them in cradles before adding the deck. While still
in the mold, four or five bulkheads made of 1/2 inch exterior plywood
were typically glassed in. Near the top of the foremost and the
aftermost of these bulkheads several holes were cut with a hole saw.
The hull was lifted out of the mold by passing lines through these
holes and attaching them to overhead cranes.
Hulls were removed from the mold and placed in cradles as soon as
possible in order to free up the mold for laying up the next hull. It
wasn't just the joining of the deck and cabin module to the hull that
would tie up the mold. There were several other time-consuming tasks
that were much easier to do without the deck in place. Adding lead to
the keel was one of these tasks. Installing an engine was another.
Installing beams to support the cabin sole was a third.
After removal from the mold, each hull was placed in a cradle. All
the cradles that I saw were identical. By placing the hull in a
standard cradle, the shape was maintained for accurate placement of
the one-piece deck and cabin module.
-- Alan
Brewer Designs
Interesting discussion. Some disparities come in from where the LOA was
measured. I always figured LOA should be measured on deck but some builders
meaure it over the gunwales, which can extend a bit beyond the deck at
either end.
That should not be the case with Jason though as she had no cast-in
gunwales.
A mold made for a cast hull can also effect the length since there is a
chance that the hull may be distorted. The shell of a boat with a proud
sheer will tend to increase her LOA and decrease beam if the ends are
allowed to droop. If a mold was taken from such a casting, then future boats
will be a bit longer and narrower than the original. It would be interesting
to compare the beam at the sheer line amidships of boats that appear longer
than the norm.
Fair Winds
Ted
draco
First, please don't be offended by my remarks about scaling paper
drawings. As I said, I'm sure you know all that and I didn't mean to
infer otherwise. But I wasn't sure what your point was with the
scaled measurement, or where you were going with it.
You're definitely right about the impact of small differences in LOA
on the final performance of the boat - much less important than being
fair, or even how much junk gets stuffed into the lazarette! I also
agree with you about the impact of people's ability to measure on the
perceived length they arrive at. Good points.
I think the related and more important point is what length are they?
- and are they all essentially the same length? If they are all the
same length, the actual length doesn't really matter much - that's
what they are. However, if we find that they are not all the same
length - by a difference me may then agree is significant - what does
that tell us about the history of our boats? And that's the
information I'm trying to get at.
Question - how did you measure the LOA of Norwegian Steam?
If there are dependable data points at the 34'9" mark and at least one
(that I consider dependable...) at the 35'0" mark, then we have to at
least consider the possibility that there are two valid different
lengths. From your description of the process of installing the deck,
it is easy to imagine where some distortion could enter the picture,
and the telltale of that would be how well the deck fits along the
edge of the hull/deck flange. On Draco, there is a border of smooth
gelcoat along the deck edge (outside the nonskid area) and this is
essentially parallel to, and starts about 2" inside of, the outer edge
of the hull at the hull/deck flange. I presume from this, that the
hull pretty well matches the deck. On the other hand, depending on
how well the cradle maintained the shape of the hull, if the hull were
shortened (or lengthened) in the cradle, the beam would probably
increase (or decrease, respectively) and the hull and deck would not
match up well, and these edges would not be parallel. I don't know -
I can only tell you about Draco.
So far as when the deck was bonded to the hull, when I was there in
'77, the mold was empty and there were no Jason hulls or cradles
there, or indoors. (This was in the "outdoor" part of his building -
essentially an extension of the enclosed part of his shop - roofed
over, and with a wall on one side, but otherwise outdoors.) There was
no evidence that the mold was ready for use - no tape over the parting
joint, and no fresh wax. There was one deck in a mold, but from the
appearance of it, it had been there for some time - not sure what that
was about. Draco was #31 (Winter '78), and, from the numbers I've
heard (strength of rumor?) that was approaching the end of the run.
So perhaps the push was over and Miller wasn't in such a rush to free
up the mold. As I mentioned, he had 2 other boats (one mid-40', other
low 50' range?) in the inside work area, so he was busy. The Jason
bare-hull price plans he offered were to work to a fixed schedule -
most expensive - or to work on it it when the crews had spare time -
cheapest plan (and the one I accepted). So, as I mentioned in an
earlier post, it sounds like, at that time, he wasn't concentrating on
Jasons.
I should note that Draco was shipped to me with no bulkheads, engine,
ballast or anything else - just the hull and deck/trunk). And there
were no remnants of anything indicating bulkheads, however temporary,
had ever been attached inside the hull. It was a giant, uniformly
original, green cavern. On the basis of this, and Miller's statement,
I do believe the deck was bonded to the hull before it was removed
from the mold. The companionway and forward hatch openings had been
roughly cut out (approx where I designated), and perhaps those
openings were what they used used for lifting points.
(This is not to say the hull was empty. Miller called one day to say
if I sent him a list of the sheet-goods I intended to use, he would
buy them out there and put them inside the hull before bonding the
deck on. That would enable me to fabricate all the bulkheads from
whole sheets, rather than from pieces narrow enough to fit down the
companionway then scarfed back together. So when the boat arrived
here, it had some 40 sheets of various kinds of plywood, plus a bunch
of other stuff, all trying to slide into the keel cavity. However,
other than the mess, there was no evidence that any temporary
bulkheads or any other kind of lifting supports had ever been
installed - or ground out again.)
So I suspect the process may have changed a bit from what you related
to the time when Draco was molded and shipped.
And last, my remarks about why there might be another mold do not
necessarily mean I subscribe to that theory - as you said there's no
compelling reason for it - just that it would fit some of the
observations and, for the reason I described, is not beyond the realm
of possibility. Just another possibility to consider - we're here to
share information, and that leads to questions - and hopefully, to
answers.
Again, thank you for sharing what you know of the history of our
boats. Every back-and-forth here brings out more tidbits of their
origins. If we bat it around and get enough people involved,
eventually, we'll have the whole story.
Thanks again,
Frank
Alan
If your boat was delivered without any bulkheads at all, I would have
to agree that the deck must have been joined while the hull was in the
mold. In the normal case, bulkheads with the help of the cradle would
hold the hull in shape after being lifted from the mold and before the
addition of the deck.
My hull had an inward curling "lip" at the sheer line. The deck
module was placed on top of this. The edges of the deck module may
also have been trimmed a bit with a saw. Between the edges of the
deck module and the actual edge of the hull at the sheer, there was
perhaps three-quarters of an inch all the way around. I ended up
covering the somewhat raw edge of the deck module with a teak molding,
after my toe-rail was in place.
One of the biggest differences between the way that Jasons were
finished was the handling of the deck edge. Most fiberglass cruising
boats of that vintage were designed to have the hull extend
approximately six inches above deck level so as to form a bulwark.
The deck rested within the hull on a cleat, which was often simply
made from glassed-in wood. The inside of this deck-extension/bulwark
was then faced with wood and finally capped with sawed teak. This
looked very "shippy" and with the sawed cap was an easy solution to
the problem of curving teak around the stern of a double ender. Earl
Miller would have none of this. He warned that decks like that were
likely to leak, to rot, and even to come unglued. He touted his own
method for joining hull and deck, which he had developed for racing
boats and which had never caused any problems. To finish the edge
attractively, he offered a toe-rail package to be executed by his
highly skilled "teak men" but which cost, if I recall, almost exactly
as much as the hull itself. I could not afford that, but then put in
a tremendous amount of work building my own, "pretty good looking"
teak toe-rail, cursing Earl all the while. I have recently seen some
other cruising boats from the same era, finished with bulwarks as
described above, which have been no end of trouble for their owners.
As was usually the case, Earl Miller was right.
-- Alan
draco
I can understand that the temporary bulkheads used for lifting, if
left in place, would help a lot to keep the hull in shape when in the
cradle. Still, doing this with a green hull leaves me with an image
of something like jello. But I guess it worked well enough, and I'm
sure Miller knew it's limitations and how to do it carefully. Earl
seemed to be a pretty sharp guy, with lots of good, well-thought out
ideas, and very patient and free with his advice and assistance. He
used to call every 3 - 6 months while I was building Draco, just to
check up and pass on any new ideas, and it was always great to talk to
him.
Yes, that "inward curving lip" you mentioned is the "hull to deck
flange" I spoke of above - I think all the Jasons have that - it's a
common way to support the deck on boats that don't have a molded toe
rail, or bulwark. The only problem - as you know - is sealing the
edge where it sits on the flange.
I assume your deck is attached in the same way as Draco's. First,
when the deck is molded, the core is omitted from the deck where it
will overlap the hull / deck flange, so you have solid fiberglass
there. Then, it looks like Miller ran a heavy bead of adhesive (5200
or equiv?) along the flange and then laid the deck in it, essentially
gluing and (hopefully) making a water tight seal between the two.
Then he put several layers of fiberglass (looks like alternating mat
and fairly heavy woven roving, maybe 5 layers, 8" - 12" wide?) across
from the underside of the hull/deck flange to the underside of the
deck. This is continuous from bow to stern, and - especially if done
when the hull and deck are still green - makes a very strong joint
holding the two together, and distributing and transferring a lot of
the shear stress from the hull into the deck. All told, probably a
much better method than the molded-in "bulwark" of various heights
seen on some boats, that is held together with bolts (or sometimes
with just self-tapping screws!) , which are then hidden under a wooden
cap to corrode (it's "stain-LESS", not "stain-PROOF"!) and leak.
When Draco was delivered, the edge of the deck was pretty rough (not
poor, just rough ends of fiberglass layers, probably trimmed with a
utility knife while still in the mold, but never carefully finished).
No problem - I just ran along it with a carbide router bit adjusted
just above the flange and set 1" in from the edge of the shear
strake. That gave a nice even trimmed edge to the deck just barely
into the area of smooth gelcoat I mentioned above. (Plus it curves
outward a bit to go uniformly around the area where the chain plates
go through the deck.) I then used 5200 to glue down a 1/2" flexible
plastic molding to trim and seal the "new" edge of the deck, and block
the small gap between the deck and the flange. Looks OK, not great,
but it does the job and is mostly hidden from view by the raised toe
rail - cum - bulwark.
Draco has the Atkins-style raised rail, with Miller's cast bronze
bases. It's 5/4 X 6 teak, spaced about 3/4" - 1" above the deck.
Lets lots of water - and tools - run freely off the deck. It's great
for putting your foot against when working along the lee deck - also
nice for holding a snatch block with a nylon web strop. Plus Miller's
stanchion bases added 56 5/15" bolts to the hull/deck joint -
probably more than are hidden under the cap rail of most boats. This
rail is the second incarnation - the first was mahogany. I love
mahogany, but mahogany loves varnish and varnish means sandpaper and I
hate sandpaper! So it got pretty sick looking and I finally replaced
it (and all the exterior mahogany) with teak. Steaming and shaping
it away from the shop was a bit of an adventure, but it's been well
worth the effort. When I need my mahogany fix, I either go below
(still all mahogany), or I look at a Wooden Boats calendar.
OK, thanks for the new info. This is great! Lets keep this going and
try to hear from anyone else out there with pieces of history, too.
Have fun -
Frank
S/V Draco
Alan
Thanks for the great description of how you handled the deck edges on
Draco. I think that the washboard approach is a very good one.
Pertner really wanted that in order to shed water as quickly as
possible. A few years ago I had the good fortune to ride the last of
the real Colin Archer Norwegian lifeboats, Oslo Skoeyte, from Poulsbo
Washington, across Puget Sound, and into the Lake Washington ship
canal. Built just before World War II, she first saw action rescuing
British troops at Dunkirk. Oslo Skoeyte was about 75' LOA and had
washboards that were two feet high and very strong.
How did you finish the edge around the canoe stern?
-- Alan
Alan
Something that I forgot to clarify in my last posting is that the four
or five bulkheads glassed into the hull while it was still in the mold
were not temporary. Earl Miller offered a bulkhead package, and he
believed that half inch exterior plywood was fully adequate. If a
customer requested thicker plywood or insisted on marine plywood I am
sure he would supply that, at additional cost.
Miller sold quarter inch plywood with teak veneer on one side as well
as 3/8" plywood with plastic laminate on one side. Many owner
builders bought this material from him and then glued it onto the 1/2"
bulkheads, using Weldwood, ending up with 3/4", 1" or even 1-1/8"
thick bulkheads in the end.
In my case, I removed one of the bulkheads after I learned that I
would need to place the mast 18" forward of the originally designed
position. For its replaclement, I used 3/4" marine plywood, because
given its position near the mast and the chain-plates, it was the most
important bulkhead in the boat and I was not completely convinced of
Earl's argument as to the adequacy of 1/2" exterior grade plywood. We
covered all of the bulkheads with plastic laminate using contact
cement, and have had no problems to date.
-- Alan
draco
Sounds like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity aboard the Oslo Skoeyte!
Glad to hear you were able to do that.
I Googled "Oslo Skoeyte" (Boy! is that a contradiction in eras!!) but
got no hits.
Toe rails at bow and stern -
I stopped the raised rail about 24" from the stem and about 36" from
the stern.
I wanted to have a sturdy base for chocks in those areas, so I built
up much lower, solid toe rails from sawn teak.
- The one at the bow is about 2-1/2" high by about 2" wide, made of
several pieces overlapped so the grain doesn't match up, to prevent
(reduce?) splitting under load, and also to be continuous across the
point of the stem.
- The one at the stern is about 1-1/2" high by about 1-1/2" wide.,
made of single pieces port and stbd.
- They both run about 3/8" in from the edge of the hull, and sit flat
on the deck, with the undersides rabbeted such that where they extend
past the edge of the deck, they reach down to sit on the flange,
letting them sit solidly, and replacing that plastic trim stuff in
that area. All are through-bolted.
- The ends of the raised rail tightly overlap the ends of these lower
toe rails by an inch or so to prevent lines from getting under the
ends of the raised rail and causing mischief.
The solid toe rail at the bow is heavier because initially, the chocks
on it handled the anchor rodes. (But Draco really liked to yaw on her
anchor, so I've since added a small anchor platform to get the lead
out front and closer to the centerline, rather than over in the
chocks.)
The solid toe rail at the stern is lighter because the anticipated
loads on the stern chocks are much lighter - mainly towing the dink.
Note - The stern chocks seldom have to handle dock lines - the bow
chocks sometimes do, but only for convenience. Draco does not have
regular deck cleats for dock lines or the anchor rodes. There is a 4"
X 5" Sampson post at the bow for bow / spring and anchor lines, and
two 3" X 4" quarter bits in the after corners of the cockpit for stern
lines. All three are white oak and continuous through the deck down
to the hull. I prefer these to cleats that are frequently too low,
often too small for more than 1 line, and prone to flying through the
air when heavily loaded (and sometimes impolite to unguarded toes...).
Hope this makes sense.
William T Williams
draco
I found a website that appears to be the right boat:
http://sailingwithhubert.blogspot.com/
It looks to be about a year old.
Maybe someone here knows how to make contact through it (I don't...).
Expanding the photo shows a "for sale" sign on her bow for Calibre
Yachts.
The sign says she's a "1982 Jason 35" (and $69,900) and boat #101
(Calibre's inventory), but no indication of a date.
The Calibreyachts.com site says they're in Vancouver B.C., and the
phone # on the sign is current, but there's no listing on the site for
her.
Maybe someone up that way could give them a call?
P.S. - I tried to track down info on "sailing with Hubert", and found
a Sept '09 Cruisers Forum page by "Hubert" in B.C. Canada who closed
his post with "Jason 35 Freja II" , but no details about who Hubert
is. Perhaps someone knows how to get more info on Cruising Forums
members? (- or is a member and can contact Hubert that way?)
Hope this helps.
Frank
S/V Draco
Alan
I happen to be a member of Cruisers Forum and have posted a message to
Hubert, inviting him to join our group and asking whether or not his
boat is the one covered in Ferenc Mate's book.
-- Alan
Alan
The fact that Ferenc Mate did the Jason 35 the great honor of
including it in "Best Boats" is somewhat ironic. Al Pertner did not
like Mate at all. Several of the early Jason 35 owner-builders had
copies of Mate's "From a Bare Hull", in which Mate described how he
completed a Westsail 32. Among other things, I think Pertner saw
Mate's boat as a "sissy" boat, what with the tiled counters and tiled
hearth. One time I heard Pertner rebuke an owner-builder who referred
to an electric drill as a "drill motor" as Mate did in his book, by
asserting that it should be called a "drill" and what Mate called a
"drill" should be called a "bit". Ouch!
-- Alan
William T Williams
draco
I know Earl recommended 1/2 ext. ply for bulkheads, and for the most
part that's probably strong enough for the job (so long as it's kept
in column). Most bulkhead failures are with the fiberglass bonding it
to the hull (separating from the plywood, or cracking due to skimpy
tabbing or inadequate fillets), not with the plywood itself.
I wound up using 3/4" ply for all the structural bulkheads because of
how I put them in. I was going to cover them with mahogany door skins
(or Formica in the head and galley) and I wanted it to lay flat right
out to the hull. By the way, the door skins Earl got for me were
1/8", not 1/4"
The normal method for installing bulkheads is to bond the fiberglass
tabbing right on the surface of the plywood. Unfortunately, this
creates a bulge that prevents the door skin (or Formica) from laying
flat. To get around that problem, I set a router about 1/8" deep and
removed the first layer of plywood on both sides of the bulkhead for a
width of about 6" along the edge where it would be bonded to the hull,
deck and trunk. This created a "recess" for the fiberglass to lay in
so it didn't create that bulge, and the door skin would lay flat over
it right out to the end of the bulkhead. Because of this, I had to
use 3/4" ply so there was still enough thickness (read: strength) left
after removing those two outer layers. In reality, this probably
added less than 150# to the whole boat - far less than the amount of
junk I'm embarrassed to admit I have stashed throughout the
lockers... On cabinetwork, where only one side was getting the door
skin so only that side need to be routed out (and the plywood was more
lightly loaded anyway), I was able to use 1/2" ply.
When I was all done with the rough construction, I faired all these
"recesses" with glop, and attached the door skins with contact cement.
One note - to prevent (reduce?) printing, I trimmed all the bulkheads
1/2" shy of the hull and fitted a 1/2"-thick strip of urethane foam in
the gap. The foam also has slanted edges to form fillets for the
tabbing. A bonus of the router work is it left a fairly rough surface
for the tabbing to bond to. The bulkheads are bonded to the hull with
5 - 7 layers (3 - 5 for the lighter cabinetwork) of alternate mat and
roving, in increasing widths from 8" - 12", on both sides, and this
runs continuously (not intermittently) for the full length of the
contact with the hull, deck and cabin top.
So far, so good - the bulkheads are all still they started, the
tabbing is all sound, and there is no evidence of printing on the
outside of the hull (despite a few encounters with docks - but we
won't talk about them...)
One bonus of Earl providing the plywood (beyond being able to use full
sheets) is that the quality was much higher than what I could obtain
here. His 3/4" AB ext was 9-ply (ours, except Marine, is only 7-ply
at best), and his 1/2" AB ext was 7 ply, whereas ours was 5 at best
and usually only 3 ply. And it was much cheaper than even our poorest
grade (I suspect he passed it on at his cost), and almost free of
voids. Very nice stuff - I treat the scraps like sacred remains, for
use only on the boat!
Frank
S/V Draco
Alan
It sounds like you really put a lot of care into your bulkheads and
that your effort has been rewarded. Is Draco's hull cored?
-- Alan
draco
Draco is the second boat where I did that with the bulkheads.
It doesn't take much more time to do it that way, and probably saves
time overall because it makes the door skin job much easier.
Draco's hull is solid, no core.
Did any of the Jasons have cored hulls?
Frank S/V Draco
Alan
Yes, the cored hull was a popular option. The first two hulls ("black
Jason" and Pertner's Jason) had both balsa and extra fiberglass,
adding Brewer's cored and un-cored scantlings together. Norwegian
Steam was constructed according to the Brewer cored-hull scantling. I
am not sure how many others were, but I would guess that the figure
would be over 50%.
Miller started the balsa above the waterline and continued it to about
six inches below the sheer. The balsa stopped a foot or so from bow
and stern as well.
The reason I asked, is having a cored hull makes it easier to glass in
bulkheads without any distortion discernable from the exterior. It
also makes for a very stiff hull.
I am happy that I opted for the balsa cored hull, and have had no
problems to date. I have had two minor problems with the balsa in the
deck, however. Early on, I wasn't insufficiently careful with the
installation of a bilge pump and a holding tank pump-out. MIller had
convinced me that end-grain balsa properly saturated with polyester
resin would not wick moisture horizontally and that 5200 had a near
infinite life-span, hence it was not necessary to remove balsa and
replace with resin in way of deck-piercing fittings or fastenings.
After only a couple such installations, luckily, I changed my mind and
everything else has been installed using the tedious process of balsa
removal and replacement with epoxy. The problems with the bilge pump
and the holding tank fittings were fully repaired when discovered,
some years ago. Knowing that there is no exposed balsa allows me to
sleep better at night.
-- Alan
draco
Interesting news about the number of cored hulls - that surprises me.
I would have expected them all to be solid glass.
I'm not a fan of cored hulls. Yes, it can make a stiffer hull, but it
invites a whole list of problems for not much benefit in boats like
these.
One big fear I have in cored hulls is that the inner skin usually
winds up being thinner and more flexible, which makes bonding the
bulkheads to it a bit iffy - everything then depends on the bond
between the inner skin and the core. Plus, an encounter with a dock
(or whatever) tends to be concentrated near the bulkheads, making
delamination of the core more likely, right where you need it most.
On the other hand, there are scads of cored hulls out there doing just
fine!
And I know what you mean about the balsa cored deck. I had a few
problems with that too, also from not being careful enough. Mine were
around the hatch coamings, where I just used a strip of mat to cover
the exposed core. Unfortunately, the fasteners for the coaming went
through behind the mat and lany leakage thre went straight into the
core. In retrospect, I should have cut the core back an inch or so
and filled the slot with epoxy and microballoons. In the final
analysis, I had to gouge out far more saturated balsa than that!
I asked Earl about using Airex in the deck (to eliminate the
saturation problem), but he was against it because he said heavy items
(anchors, dinghy, etc.) laying on the deck (especially in the heat of
the sun) would cause permanent depressions in the surface of the
deck. I don't know whether that's true or not - no experience there.
He gave me the same assurance about the balsa - so apparently the
answer is that it really wasn't resin-saturated in the first place.
Do you have any concerns where things like the exhaust through-hull or
mounting bolts for the self-steering, etc. penetrate the cored part of
the hull?
Alan
Neither my engine exhaust, the shaft, nor any of my bilge pump
exhausts pass through balsa. They are all located in areas where
there never was any balsa. As for the supports for my Monitor vane
gear, I removed balsa and filled with epoxy around the fasteners, just
as I do for all of the hardware mounted on deck. I did have the two
cockpit drain hoses attached to bronze through-hulls that passed
through balsa. Those were the first pieces of hardware I ever
installed on the boat, I believe. Two years ago, I had the Seaview
Boatyard here in Seattle remove them and reinstall them each about
nine inches lower through the hull. They found no leakage, the 5200
having worked perfectly for all those years. Better to be safe,
however, especially with holes that large.
-- Alan
draco
I guess no reply yet from "Hubert" on Freja-II?
Frank
Alan
Alan
hubert
long,but I am not on the computer that often.
I respondet to your message in Cruiser Forum last week.At the present
time I am on my boat in Point Roberts until Sunday.
I could take a drive down to Seattle to link up with youComunicating
verbaly is easier for me and it would be interesting to see your boat.
Going by the Certificate of registry she was build 1978 and registerd
in Vancouver BC July 3rd 1980 the owners Garry Peerless and Anne
Swifton of Vancouver.The last owner before me was Rowa Walter for 10
years,whow did a lot of upgrating.
The hull# is partly couvert by a monting bracket for the monitor wind
steering but the first # read MMR350 the 3 could also be a 8.
I am preparing the boat to sail off shore leaving in August. If you
are interested in meeting with me please E-mail me.
I find this google group very intersting and hope I can contribute to
it.
I am amased about all the variables on the Jason 35.
Looking forward hearing from you .Happy sailing
Hubert S/V Freja II
Alan
owner of Freya II, the Jason 35 made famous by Ferenc Mate by
inclusion in his "Best Boats" book. Hubert is a Canadian citizen of
north German origin, who is now retired from the food industry. Most
recently he had a restaurant in the Okanagon, one of North America's
most awesome locations. Freya II is currently moored at Point
Roberts, a strange little bit of the United states, surrounded by
Canada, very close to the main US-Canada border. Hubert came down to
Seattle for the day, and met me on Norwegian Steam, moored at Shlshole
Bay Marina.
Hubert hopes to head south to Mexico at the end of August, and then
possibly join the Pacific Puddle Jump. He has considerable offshore
experience himself, but has a lot of work to do to get Freya II ready
for offshore. Perhaps Freya II has made ocean passages earlier in her
career, but Hubert does not have any information to indicate whether
or not that is the case. Does any other forum member happen to know?
Hubert showed me some pictures of Freya II. Just as in Mate's book,
she's a beauty, but she may be more complete in terms of her interior
and her electronic systems than in offshore rigging. Luckily, Hubert
now has ample time to whip her into shape.
> I guess no reply yet from "Hubert" on Freja-II?
>
--
Subscription settings: http://groups.google.com/group/jason-35-sailboats/subscribe?hl=en