SeaHawk - Sails and Rigging
Page updated 6 April 2009
A Commentary on Sails
This page offers some comments on the rigs seen of different SeaHawks. More than most on this site, this section demonstrates the ignorance of the web master! Please help by correcting or adding to the information about SeaHawk sails. Use the Feedback Form to provide initial information. Let me know if you have images that could be used. (As a last result, I may be able to scan old photographs myself!)
SeaHawk #267 is seen here with what are believed to be the original Jeckells Main and Jib supplied with the boat in 1979. Apart from the difference in colour with SeaHawk #123, the first most obvious difference is that the foot of the jib on #123 is carried much higher than that of #267, suggesting this is Jeckells' "reduced jib". However, I'm not clear if it is that or that the sail is hauled higher than the jib on #267.
A jib set higher on the forestay by using a strop, as is normal on a SeaHawk, does allow better visibility under the sail, but reduces the gap between the jib and the main, and in some designs, may affect sailing performance. It also increases the heeling moment. The overall effect is not large for short strop. I am told that owners of many other boats that have handrails or a pulpit prefer the jib set a little higher to reduce wear on the sail.
It would appear that the main on #123 is a replacement from the original. It includes reefing points and the foot has a particular arrangement of panels in the cloth. It can be seen that Jeckells have not stuck to a single design in making up SeaHawk sails.
I understand that a sail maker uses the cut of the panels to match the width of the cloth and to get the shape he requires. Fewer panels mean a less expensive sail (less waste and less cutting and stitching) but make getting the right shape more difficult. It seems that Jeckells may have been experimenting with different panels to find a compromise between cost and the right shape. Logically, precise shaping usually requires small panels, but it should be possible to get well shaped sails using quite large panels if the sail maker pays careful attention to the design and cutting.
Note the angle of the lowest of the three battens in the mainsail. Both these examples dip, following the line of the seam in the sail cloth. On more recent craft the lowest batten appears to run parallel with the boom, rather than the seam. This pattern suggests that the sail was designed for roller reefing, as being parallel allows the sail to be reefed without removing the batten. The angle of the batten doesn't matter in a slab reefed sail as it just bunches up.
A roller reefing sail is less expensive than a slab reefed sail (ie, one with reefing points) because of the extra cost of sewing in and reinforcing the cringles. It is relatively easy to "upgrade" a roller reefing sail to slab reefing, just by adding the extra cringles.
If one hasn't got roller reefing to consider, battens tend to follow the line of the seam, if for no other reason than keeping the amount of stitching to a minimum (as sails tend to fail at the stitching). When necessary (as in the lowest batten in a roller-reefed sail) the batten can be anywhere.
The apparently un-numbered SeaHawk (actually #263) is a Dutch boat. I suspect that sails and rigging may have been sourced locally. For example, the tabernacle is of a design not seen on any English boat. It's been suggested to me that a different tabernacle design might reflect local regulations that require a secure towing point. Many production boats don't have a towing point that would actually stand up to the full load of a boat towed at speed.
This example also has a different arrangement of seams on the mainsail, compared to boat #123. Although it has reefing points, they are set far higher than the earlier boat. Apart from the obvious additional reduction in sail area that the Dutch boat can achieve, are there other benefits? Is it "a reef too far" or does the choice depend on whether the boat is primarily used on coastal on inland waters?
SeaHawks #376 and #406, both appear to have similar main sails, which are different to all those shown above. They have a horizontal lower batten and the two lowest panels in the sail are shaped differently to the earlier examples. I assume that this is the original sail design for boats of this age, and begs the questions such as whether the main on #123 was supplied by a different maker, is earlier or later than the main sails on these more recent boats, whether the tan fabric affects the design for some reason, or whether it was just the most convenient way to cut it, given the length of fabric left on the roll?
SeaHawk #376 is shown with the standard jib. SeaHawk #406 has a furling head sail. Although the pictures of #406 does not demonstrate it well, it is noticeable that when heavily furled, the nature of the shape of the sail means that it "climbs" the forestay producing a foresail similar to that on #123. Additionally, those using a furling head sail tend to rig the sheets outside the shrouds. Most furling head sails extend aft of the shrouds when full sized, so this is necessary. However, when furled by only a small amount, it then is possible to rig as for a conventional jib and get the sail much closer hauled, which surely must offer a significant advantage?
Simon Hole kept SeaHawk #271 at Oby Dyke, off the River Bure. He sold "Mr Toad" in 2002 and its new owner took it to Rutland Water. Having bought the boat in 1993, in 1995 he ordered new sails. He ordered a main, a larger than standard jib and a "cruising chute".
In the picture, the main is noticeable in having the horizontal lower batten. Not visible in this picture, but clear from another that Simon sent me, is the fact that this sail is constructed from fabric panels of twice the width of any other that I have seen, and the lower batten pocket actually crosses the line of one of these seams. (Is this something which, ideally, should be avoided?) The lowest panel ends up being smaller than those on #376 and #406, but still tapering towards the tack.
The fully extended jib is hoisted on furling gear. The minimal distance both from the tack point and mast, suggests the sail does indeed have a longer luff than the standard jib, but is still considerably smaller than the conventional furling headsail and is rigged inside the shrouds.
The jib also is fitted with tell-tales. Chris Jeckells has written enthusiastically about these in a magazine article as an aid to efficient sail setting. SeaHawk owner Hugh Illingworth says, "They work well, are actually useful to gauge the best angle of sailing when beating, and apart from fun they have instructional value when teaching a youngster - so to be recommended!" Another owner, John Southey, says simply, "I strongly recommend them as a very useful guide to good sail trimming."
The jib winches seen here were fitted when the new sails were delivered.
Jeckells designed the cruising chute from scratch and Simon has not seen another one on a SeaHawk. All Jeckells had to go on were the dimensions of the mast and forestay. A cruising chute halyard is fixed just below the forestay and the foot is fixed to the bow. This means it acts in the same way as a genoa, though is of lighter material and much fuller. "Compared to a spinnaker this is much more practical for the Broads", claims Simon.
Simon points out that a spinnaker is hoisted up outside the rigging and billows out in front of the boat. The halyard point is above that of the forestay and there is no fixed point on the bottom, just a sheet on both sides and a spinnaker pole on one side. "They are not too practical for the rivers," says Simon, "as when you gybe, the spinnaker pole has to gybe as well, which is not so easy." With the cruising chute, on the other hand, the sail has to "deflate". When it crosses sides it needs to fill the opposite way round. This can be seen in the second view from the cockpit, where you notice that the SeaHawk symbol remains pointing away from the forestay.
SeaHawk #311 is another tan sailed boat. Interestingly, the panels in the main are of the same pattern as those on #123, and on the evidence here, are unique to tan sailed boats, and suggests that those on #123 were, indeed, manufactured by Jeckells.
Also of note, is that the panel at the foot of the sail is the same size as that on #271, tapering from a height that is still less than the height of the clew reinforcement patch. However, the lower batten in horizontal, so I am left confused as to the criteria applied to these features of the sail!
The head sail is notable as having panels cut less steeply than that on #406. Is this related to the fact that the sail doesn't appear to have the edging strip seen on #406? Is a UV-resistant strip only required when sails are white?
There is some information about electric outboards on a separate page in this section of the site.