Posted by Jock on August 22, 2005 at 11:50:21 from 217.172.246.144 user Jock.
In Reply to: Re: Swallow anew? - but which one? posted by Laurence Monkhouse on August 22, 2005 at 10:04:03:
I agree with the implication that Swallow 1 was probably not of Morecambe Bay type, whereas Swallow 2 certainly was.
Wow! Gosh! Woah! Did I implicate? STOP! I mean, I didn't mean to implicate such a design differences between S1 and S2. I just asked if there was any evidence that there were any design diffrences. This is getting too deep even for me. Help!
May I suggest we spell out some definitions please to assist our naughty nautically disadvantaged Tarboardista comrades? [Actually to assist me, but don't tell Peter H. as I'm trying to counter all his negative arguments and need to maintain an image of seasoned, salt-encrusted authority.]
By MB type I assume you mean narrow hull with "V" shaped bilge, keel and no centreboard, as in Morecombe Bay Prawner. Am I right? S1 acording to her last owner was a tubby little boat. Round bilge, so not MB type.
What evidence do we have that S2 was different to S1? What evidence to we have that S2 was MB type?
Finally as you will see from my previous post I disagree with Stuart Weir about Amazon. If Cochy=Scarab and Ransome tells us that Scarab was designed to be as like "Amazon" as possible, then Mavis cannot be Amazon. Q.E.D.
[Pause to check helicopter flying overhead. Men in funny black suits burst through window. A number of dull thuds are heard by the next door neighbours who when questioned by the police next day claim that they thought it was the sound of pigs' trotters being chopped up. Two days later all Jock postings vanish from Tarboard and George and Tony appear on TV together with new evidence that the battle against wicked thoughts is being won.]