SeaHawk - Sails and Rigging
Page updated 1 April 2007
Early SeaHawks had a simple Bermudan sloop rig, supported on black anodised aluminium mast and boom, with stainless steel standing rigging. The black finish was quickly dropped from the standard specification.
Up till the end of manufacture by R. Moore and Sons all new SeaHawks were supplied with sails made by Jeckells of Wroxham. Only one of the handful of boats made since then is numbered (#502). As explained on the History page, it was during the sale of Moore's assets that the record book "went missing".
Reedcraft offered a mainsail, jib and genoa on their boats though it is possible that many customers opted not to have this full set. However, during the Moore period the options changed.
The table below shows that Jeckells can supply a "reduced" set, giving a sail area of around 86sq ft. For how long this has been available is not known. The December 1991 price list indicates that, at that time, a roller reefing head sail had become standard which, according to Moore's, provided a total sail area of 168sq ft. However, this rig was clearly an option from before this point.
Dimensions
The measurements, given in the table below, were provided by Jeckells, believed to be the sole supplier throughout the period of manufacture of the boat.
| Sail Area (Standard Mast): Standard: Main: Jib: Genoa: Reduced: Main: Jib: Genoa: |
sq ft 76.5 36 70 60 26 ? |
sq m 7.03 3.31 6.43 5.51 2.39 ? |
By extrapolation, the reduced Genoa is likely to be about 53sq ft (4.87sq m), although this figure conflicts with Moore's figure of 50sq ft, given on their 1986 Price List.
The figues above also conflict with that given in the original Reedcraft brochure. That says the total sail area of "Main and Jib" was 126 sq ft. The brochure was produced early in the boat's life, and never changed, even in Moore's time. As the SeaHawk was conceived as a coastal cruiser, it is possible that it was anticipated that the normal rig would be a standard genoa and reduced main, which approximates to the 126sq ft figure. Alternatively, it is a figure for a completely different design that was changed before production began.
Equally puzzling is the figure that Moores give for the later standard rig with furling head sail that, again, does not agree with any of the figures provided by Jeckells.
Leaving aside the issue of uncertain dimensions, the choice of head sail for those without furling gear is worthy of mention. Although the trend in sail plan design is for increasingly large head sails and smaller mains, for those cruising in rivers, or other areas where tacking will be frequent, the standard jib is the clearly preferred option over the genoa. The jib does not foul the mast when tacking, so makes the boat quick and easy to bring about. In most conditions you will gain far more than you lose through having less sail in the wind.
To counter that view, in the commentary section below, there is an example of a Broads based owner who had a crusing chute made for his SeaHawk. And for those who wanted it, Moores offered a spinnaker option in their both their 1986 and 1991 price lists.
Age of Sails
Deciding whether it's worth spending the money on changing sails that are obviously aging will always pose a problem. Other than condition a deciding factor may be their age. It helps if you can recognise the label that Jeckell sewed to the sails when new. The design has changed over the years, so the following images should help you date yours. Beneath each image is the year in which that style of maker's label was introduced.
 1970 |
 1976 |
 1989 |
Image Awaited! 1994 |
 1998 |
 2002 |
Chris Jeckells reported the 1976 design as "a black square in plastic" and reckoned it is very rare as the plastic became brittle and broke up easily. The one still currently missing from our collection was described by him as "printed". If you can provide a photograph of this type, let us know via the Feedback Form.
Mast and Boom
The standard mast stands approximately 21ft above the gunwale. Although there is a report, mentioned on the History page, of two boats having been built with 24ft masts.
One of these taller masted boats was prepared for the 1992 Boat Show, but that one appears not to have been delivered to its first owner with the taller mast. Apart from the customer's name, nothing more is known of the other boat.
On many Broads based craft the mast is supported in a tabernacle that makes lowering and raising the mast, for passing under bridges, significantly easier. At least three designs have been seen on boats for the tabernacle. The earliest example seen so far is that on #232, a heavy galvanised steel affair, in which the standard mast foot slides in two slots when being lowered. All other examples hinge the mast some 10" up from its base, but this requires the mast to be drilled and reinforced at this point.
The boom is normally arranged for roller reefing.
Rigging
Forestay and shroud lines join the mast about a quarter of the way from the peak, running via swept-back spreaders, to an anchorage on the cabin sides slightly aft of the mast. Secondary shrouds lead to the same anchorage point, from just under half way up the mast. There are a variety of methods in use for fitting the shrouds to the achorage point on the cabin side. This is discussed in the Boat Shed section of the site.
There is no aft stay. Broads sailors welcome this. The business of lowering and raising the mast in order to pass under the many bridges becomes a much less risky affair, as there is one less rope to foul the outboard motor or get caught on the aft cleats!
A Commentary on Sails
The remainder of 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.