Schooner vs Ketch

[IdoraKeeper]

I can tell you from experience sailing a split rig has a certain majesty. The increase in power when the entire rig is trimmed correctly is thrilling to me...it works as a unit. Each sail feeds the next. When its time to reef, don't...just strike the main and ease on along your way. No thrashing, no sweat. I have only sailed a small schooner when I was a kid (William Garden June Bug) it needed a bowsprit but was quite effective even so.

[SecondBase]

Originally Posted by Benz

That's definitely an understatement! To be fair, though, racing has brought some benefits, so we should appreciate a little. But not too much

Right. It has brought better materials but it has forced old & true designs almost fully out of existence and understanding. It seems like one of the naval architecture programs would take on New Materials for Old Designs -- or maybe all the new designers just want to design raceboats?

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Benz

Hi Dockhead,
Since it was me, I'll chime in and stick up for them, bringing up points in no apparent order.
Someone mentioned that they're better rigs for bigger boats--and I agree, but the average size of the cruising boat is growing, and bigger boats need bigger rigs, which need hydraulics or electric winches to handle--or the sails can be split into manageable sizes. Of course no split-rig boat will sail upwind as well as a high-aspect sloop; but no racy cruising sloop will achieve it's full upwind potential anyway if loaded for cruising.
I worked on an 80-foot steel schooner for a few years, as mate and captain, and though we had no winches, it only took two crew to operate. Again, it didn't go to weather as tight as a 12-meter, but it was really simple, easy to handle, and we routinely tacked in and out of everywhere.
The big mainsail is the driver, and all the sails in front of it, if trimmed correctly, give the main a beautiful slot of air to operate in. If going downwind, you sheet the fores'l in so it doesn't gybe, douse the stay'sl so the jib gets better wind, and only have to worry about not gybing the main. With a gaff, you can usually go lots further downwind without fearing a gybe, because of the way it twists off to leeward.
My 31' cutter has a gaff-rigged main that I can easily hoist myself--it's not hard to handle two halyards at once, and a fifty-ish foot schooner would not need a main much bigger than that.
I personally see no point in having a schooner that is not full-keeled, and there's no denying that full-keelers will not lie as close to the wind as spade-ruddered fin keelers. So having a hull that is already not high-performance by racing standards, it makes sense to have a rig that matches it. What a big-ish full-keel schooner will give the cruiser is very good interior space, seakindly motion, and the ability to carry a serious cruising load without affecting performance.
With broad bows, the schooner has drier ride than it's racing counterparts with narrow or even (horrors!) wave-piercing bows, and a wide deck space with high bulwarks makes working the deck easy and safe. Also, a deep, heavy, low-aspect-ratio rigged schooner will be able to carry sail longer than it's triangular-headed counterparts.
The relative simplicity of the rig (requiring no hydraulics or electric winches) makes it cheaper to operate, and the smaller sails can be replaced one by one as budget allows.
The lower masts don't require the stay tension of a tall rig, so the standing rigging is cheaper to buy and maintain, and the cost of the rig to begin with is far less than a high-aspect multi-spreadered special extrusion.
With all these advantages, isn't it kind of silly to throw them out for the sake of pointing a little closer to the wind, just so as to be wetter and more uncomfortable?
Also, for light airs, there's no limit to what the imagination can cook up in the way of topsails and fisherman's staysails and all.
Last of all, most people are judging schooners like they do gaff rigs: based on the materials available when they were common, rather than on their potential using today's technology. I'd hate to sail a wooden boat with a tree trunk for a mast and a solid wooden gaff--but my gaff cutter has alloy and carbon spars, synthetic standing rigging, alloy fittings: it supercharges the design, making the best of a good thing without the limitations of hemp rope and steel wire.
If all the naysayers who slander gaff rigs, full keels, and schooners could actually sail on a modern one, the honest ones would change their tune. The posers--well, there's always an excuse to find fault if you try hard enough.

I'll second the above thoughts.

I chose Stargazer for comfort not speed and a rig that offers me a lot of easily managed options with 3 manual furling systems of similar sized sails.

Definitely prefers reaching, which most coasting with thermals entails.
Close reaching, I'll tick over the engine at 1000rpm to get there.

Schooners.... I love the ballanced look and a long aft boom that I can use for a variety of lifts.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Benz

Hi Dockhead,
Since it was me, I'll chime in and stick up for them, bringing up points in no apparent order.
Someone mentioned that they're better rigs for bigger boats--and I agree, but the average size of the cruising boat is growing, and bigger boats need bigger rigs, which need hydraulics or electric winches to handle--or the sails can be split into manageable sizes. Of course no split-rig boat will sail upwind as well as a high-aspect sloop; but no racy cruising sloop will achieve it's full upwind potential anyway if loaded for cruising.
I worked on an 80-foot steel schooner for a few years, as mate and captain, and though we had no winches, it only took two crew to operate. Again, it didn't go to weather as tight as a 12-meter, but it was really simple, easy to handle, and we routinely tacked in and out of everywhere.
The big mainsail is the driver, and all the sails in front of it, if trimmed correctly, give the main a beautiful slot of air to operate in. If going downwind, you sheet the fores'l in so it doesn't gybe, douse the stay'sl so the jib gets better wind, and only have to worry about not gybing the main. With a gaff, you can usually go lots further downwind without fearing a gybe, because of the way it twists off to leeward.
My 31' cutter has a gaff-rigged main that I can easily hoist myself--it's not hard to handle two halyards at once, and a fifty-ish foot schooner would not need a main much bigger than that.
I personally see no point in having a schooner that is not full-keeled, and there's no denying that full-keelers will not lie as close to the wind as spade-ruddered fin keelers. So having a hull that is already not high-performance by racing standards, it makes sense to have a rig that matches it. What a big-ish full-keel schooner will give the cruiser is very good interior space, seakindly motion, and the ability to carry a serious cruising load without affecting performance.
With broad bows, the schooner has drier ride than it's racing counterparts with narrow or even (horrors!) wave-piercing bows, and a wide deck space with high bulwarks makes working the deck easy and safe. Also, a deep, heavy, low-aspect-ratio rigged schooner will be able to carry sail longer than it's triangular-headed counterparts.
The relative simplicity of the rig (requiring no hydraulics or electric winches) makes it cheaper to operate, and the smaller sails can be replaced one by one as budget allows.
The lower masts don't require the stay tension of a tall rig, so the standing rigging is cheaper to buy and maintain, and the cost of the rig to begin with is far less than a high-aspect multi-spreadered special extrusion.
With all these advantages, isn't it kind of silly to throw them out for the sake of pointing a little closer to the wind, just so as to be wetter and more uncomfortable?
Also, for light airs, there's no limit to what the imagination can cook up in the way of topsails and fisherman's staysails and all.
Last of all, most people are judging schooners like they do gaff rigs: based on the materials available when they were common, rather than on their potential using today's technology. I'd hate to sail a wooden boat with a tree trunk for a mast and a solid wooden gaff--but my gaff cutter has alloy and carbon spars, synthetic standing rigging, alloy fittings: it supercharges the design, making the best of a good thing without the limitations of hemp rope and steel wire.
If all the naysayers who slander gaff rigs, full keels, and schooners could actually sail on a modern one, the honest ones would change their tune. The posers--well, there's always an excuse to find fault if you try hard enough.

Few cruisers actually sail upwind anyway -- too much work. So why sacrifice all these other qualities for the sake of a theoretical advantage upwind? There's a lot of sense in this argument.

But how DO you get upwind? I cruised SW Florida and nearby areas for about 15 years in a boat which had a very long fin keel and big skeg on the rudder, which couldn't go upwind to save its life. Maximum VMG to windward under sail in good conditions was maybe 2 knots. We waited for the wind to change or just motored in the mostly very light conditions in that area.

But I've been sailing North of 50N for the last 8 years, and that tactic doesn't really work here, and certainly doesn't work if you have long distances to go against the prevailing winds. So you have to have SOME way to get upwind, and the motor won't do it if it's blowing F6 or F7 and you have to get through the kind of head seas you get. You'll burn up a lot of fuel trying to make 4 or 5 knots. To make it worse, the wind might blow from exactly the same direction for weeks, so you might grow a long beard waiting for it to change.

But I still think about ketches, nonetheless. It seems to me that if the masts are far enough apart, and if the mizzen is of a decent size, surely a ketch could be just about as weatherly as a "high aspect sloop". You won't get up into as strong air as you find with a really tall mast, but the aspect ratio of two smaller mainsails could be the same. And surely some of the extra sails you get to play with on a split rig work well upwind. No?

[double u]

schooner not necessarily equals slow":
https://static.rcgroups.net/forums/a...g?d=1261157263
more seriously:
many subscribing to "...Few cruisers actually sail upwind anyway -- too much work. So why sacrifice all these other qualities for the sake of a theoretical advantage upwind?..." found out that as from time to time a hard beat upwind is unavoidable extending the agony isn't necessarily the best approach...

[brownoarsman]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

But I still think about ketches, nonetheless. It seems to me that if the masts are far enough apart, and if the mizzen is of a decent size, surely a ketch could be just about as weatherly as a "high aspect sloop". You won't get up into as strong air as you find with a really tall mast, but the aspect ratio of two smaller mainsails could be the same. And surely some of the extra sails you get to play with on a split rig work well upwind. No?

If it's blowing 20-30 knots routinely though, do you really want a really tall mast to find the strong air? By 25 I usually will have taken one reef in the main so the extra height in a sloop rig mast would just be dead windage/weight for me. It seems like the conditions you describe predominantly sailing in are the conditions where a split rig (ketch specifically) would really start to come into their own.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by brownoarsman

If it's blowing 20-30 knots routinely though, do you really want a really tall mast to find the strong air? By 25 I usually will have taken one reef in the main so the extra height in a sloop rig mast would just be dead windage/weight for me. It seems like the conditions you describe predominantly sailing in are the conditions where a split rig (ketch specifically) would really start to come into their own.

Yes, the stronger wind up high is a benefit of a tall mast only in calmer weather -- obviously.

For really strong conditions, a split rig has another very big advantage -- breaking up the sail plan. Sailing on smaller unreefed sails. Jib 'n' jigger or any number of other combinations.

But more sticks in the air is more windage however you slice it, so trying to get hard upwind might be worse in any case.

Unless . . . with the masts far enough apart that they don't interfere with each other, and very efficient main/mizzen sails, high aspect and roachy. . . . . .

I guess -- thinking out loud -- with a Bermuda rig, you're ALWAYS going to have more draggy mast per square meter of lifty sail area with a split rig -- because the foot is much longer at the bottom of a single taller mast.

But power upwind is not a direct function of sail area -- aspect comes into it, so length of leech is also a factor. And a split rig WILL have equal or nearly equal length of leech per given length of mast.

Maybe square-top main/mizzen sails could build on this factor even more?

[Benz]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Few cruisers actually sail upwind anyway -- too much work. So why sacrifice all these other qualities for the sake of a theoretical advantage upwind? There's a lot of sense in this argument.

But how DO you get upwind? I cruised SW Florida and nearby areas for about 15 years in a boat which had a very long fin keel and big skeg on the rudder, which couldn't go upwind to save its life. Maximum VMG to windward under sail in good conditions was maybe 2 knots. We waited for the wind to change or just motored in the mostly very light conditions in that area.

But I've been sailing North of 50N for the last 8 years, and that tactic doesn't really work here, and certainly doesn't work if you have long distances to go against the prevailing winds. So you have to have SOME way to get upwind, and the motor won't do it if it's blowing F6 or F7 and you have to get through the kind of head seas you get. You'll burn up a lot of fuel trying to make 4 or 5 knots. To make it worse, the wind might blow from exactly the same direction for weeks, so you might grow a long beard waiting for it to change.

But I still think about ketches, nonetheless. It seems to me that if the masts are far enough apart, and if the mizzen is of a decent size, surely a ketch could be just about as weatherly as a "high aspect sloop". You won't get up into as strong air as you find with a really tall mast, but the aspect ratio of two smaller mainsails could be the same. And surely some of the extra sails you get to play with on a split rig work well upwind. No?

A schooner, well-trimmed, will still go upwind--it just doesn't do it as close as a race boat. The normal course we took on the schooner involved tacking out of the bay, then running back down. The advantage of a heavy hull and split rig was that when the rest of the world was losing efficiency by having to reef, we were still carrying all plain sail, making good time, and keeping dry.
My own full-keel cutter, sailing in Newfoundland under storm try'sl and and reefed stay'sl, still made close to hull speed with the wind forward of the beam. So a well-designed full-keel can still go to weather. I can't speak to a badly designed one, though there are plenty of them.
The problem I see with a ketch is that the size of the main is limited--you can't have the boom whacking the mizzen. But a schooner can have a boom that hangs way over the stern, if so desired. Though it starts to look silly if it hangs over too far.
As another poster has mentioned, it is glorious to feel the power of a well-made split rig with good trim. It beats any squirrely, high-aspect racing boat I've ever sailed.
And as another poster mentioned, if schooners were built with modern materials, I think it would be an eye-opener to many.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Benz

. . . The advantage of a heavy hull and split rig was that when the rest of the world was losing efficiency by having to reef, we were still carrying all plain sail, making good time, and keeping dry.. .

That's true of any rig which is still within its wind range, when others have to reef. Does not require an inefficient underbody or heavy displacement. This trick works even better with a lighter boat and an efficient keel.

One of the biggest fallacies to infect sailors is "the bigger/taller the better; just reef if there's too much wind".

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

..........It seems to me that if the masts are far enough apart, and if the mizzen is of a decent size, surely a ketch could be just about as weatherly as a "high aspect sloop". You won't get up into as strong air as you find with a really tall mast, but the aspect ratio of two smaller mainsails could be the same. And surely some of the extra sails you get to play with on a split rig work well upwind. No?

From my past studies of aircraft design:

The two wings of a bi-plane will always negatively affect each other's efficiency. In theory, only infinite space between the wings (gap) will eliminate all interference.

That said, a gap equal to one wing span will be sufficient to eliminate noticable interference. However, the structure needed to support/separate the wings will add more drag (and weight) than is saved by large gaps.

In practice, a gap of approximately 1/4 span is the best workable arrangement (smaller gaps than this will have excessive interference between the wings). It is now well understood that bi-plane aircraft suffer compared to monoplanes in every conceivable way except looking cool (I own a bi-plane )

Now, a split rig (mono-hull) sailboat has its masts set in tandem (staggered) and I am not sure how the above bi-plane info relates (a split rig catamaran has the potential of having its masts set more like a b-plane).

That said, I'll assume that a gap/stagger of one mast height will be needed to eliminate noticeable interference - and that is just not practical.

Note: I altered my boat from schooner to sloop, not for any efficiency gain. Rather, I did it to reduce weight aloft and perhaps most importantly, to get that mast out of the middle of the saloon.

Steve

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Panope

From my past studies of aircraft design:

The two wings of a bi-plane will always negatively affect each other's efficiency. In theory, only infinite space between the wings (gap) will eliminate all interference.

That said, a gap equal to one wing span will be sufficient to eliminate noticable interference. However, the structure needed to support/separate the wings will add more drag (and weight) than is saved by large gaps.

In practice, a gap of approximately 1/4 span is the best workable arrangement (smaller gaps than this will have excessive interference between the wings). It is now well understood that bi-plane aircraft suffer compared to monoplanes in every conceivable way except looking cool (I own a bi-plane )

Now, a split rig (mono-hull) sailboat has its masts set in tandem (staggered) and I am not sure how the above bi-plane info relates (a split rig catamaran has the potential of having its masts set more like a b-plane).

That said, I'll assume that a gap/stagger of one mast height will be needed to eliminate noticeable interference - and that is just not practical.

Note: I altered my boat from schooner to sloop, not for any efficiency gain. Rather, I did it to reduce weight aloft and perhaps most importantly, to get that mast out of the middle of the saloon.

Steve

Awesome information. Why I love this forum.

[Pauls]

Dockhead, what you're talking about with a split rig with a significant gap to allow the mizzen to see clear air is exactly what Steve Dashew finalized on for their larger cruising boats. For this approach to work you need the combination of fairly light displacement and a high length to beam ratio. Why? The high length to beam gives you a longer boat for a given displacement, and the added length gives room for a larger gap between the main and mizzen. The lighter displacement requires a smaller rig for a given sail area to displacement ratio, the smaller sails again allowing a larger gap fore and aft.

The combination of a light, narrow boat with an efficient split rig makes a fast, easy to handle system for a cruiser. By the way, Dashew's rig had both masts about the same height, so you could call it either a schooner or a ketch, as pleases your fancy. He called them ketches.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Pauls

Dockhead, what you're talking about with a split rig with a significant gap to allow the mizzen to see clear air is exactly what Steve Dashew finalized on for their larger cruising boats. For this approach to work you need the combination of fairly light displacement and a high length to beam ratio. Why? The high length to beam gives you a longer boat for a given displacement, and the added length gives room for a larger gap between the main and mizzen. The lighter displacement requires a smaller rig for a given sail area to displacement ratio, the smaller sails again allowing a larger gap fore and aft.

The combination of a light, narrow boat with an efficient split rig makes a fast, easy to handle system for a cruiser. By the way, Dashew's rig had both masts about the same height, so you could call it either a schooner or a ketch, as pleases your fancy. He called them ketches.

Bingo.

[NSboatman]

Looking for a high-performance schooner design? this one is a design from the early 1800's, that was well known for being incredibly fast then - and is even more today in modern materials.

the modern incarnation uses a lot of high modulus rigging, high end racing gear, stiff hull construction; and I can attest to her incredible power under sail. these guys think nothing of hitting 17 knots offshore, in real, open ocean conditions. yes, she's wet on deck... but what isn't at 17 knots? QM2 maybe...

low aspect ratio really, for her length anyway, huge bowsprit, loose-footed sails, and only a single shroud set each side on each mast (no spreaders). an incredible machine to watch under sail.

https://www.sailonboard.com/vessel/spirit-of-bermuda/

[gjordan]

Dockhead, look into Ocean 60s. They have been around for decades, mostly in the charter trade because they are easy to handle. Equal masts, same size main and foresail, I dont care for only one head sail but roller furling and a removable inner, could make that work well. You would probably make the main of lighter cloth than the fore and maybe only one reef in the main and 2 or 3 reefs in the fore, but in a pinch they would be interchangable. No #@&* bow sprit to deal with and none of the sails are huge. Ocean Yachts (if they are still around) could probably give you a lot of information. I am not suggesting buying an old Ocean 60, but look at the design ideas as a possibility. I love old gaff rigged schooners, but a modern design using a modern schooner rig would work well. Just my thoughts. _____Grant.