Posted by Posting by someone else on behalf of Jock on August 22, 2005 at 14:35:58 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 12:26:05:
Jock is temporarily unavailable just now, this posting is being provided by his friends [Har! Har!] until he [or a replacement] can be found.
Let's carefully examine the new data provided by I E-N and L M and see how it fits in with what we know so far.
L M The Morecambe Bay design with deepish keel and no centreboard is very distinctive. It obviously developed because of wide areas of very shallow water, which would not apply in the Lakes, where I fancy that a centreboard would be more normal .
Having followed one of the links in I E-N's postings I find:
Drawing of a Lune whammel boat, 1991
Right, there is a keel and no centreboard, getting closer, but the Scandavian sloping transom is not right.
So S1 and S2 were not Whammel Boats. Gosh this is getting tougher than Rattletrap. Hold on there Peter H!
Thanks to Ian's links it's now clearer as to what Laurence is referring to by MB style.
This Morecambe Bay Mussel Boat has narrow lines, a flat bilge amidships which almost immediately starts to taper into a shallow “V”. Obviously meant to sail, but no centreboard, so will have a deep keel. Lovely to row or scull over the stern. (It won't yaw from side to side as much as a tubbier keel-less boat would do.)
Almost a dead ringer for S2?
Now reduce the depth of the keel.
L M Morecambe Bay Mussel Boats actually DID have a centreboard.
So now add a centreboard and wothavugot? Mavis!
We conclude that Mavis is a Morecambe Bay Mussel Boat, that S2 is a deep keel/no centreboard version of Mavis and that the provenance of S1 and Amazon remain unproven.
[Gadzooks Sir, is there no stopping these people. These anarchists cannot even spell. I shall write to The Times.]