• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
ILYB-Todd

Ranger 26-2 Gary Mull 1980 Design

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, AlR said:

I don't think Ranger ever advertised this boat as an IOR boat, but I believe it's genesis was in one of the Mull QTs of that era.  Look for his QTs in Asia and Australia in the late 70s.

Many QTs outside of North America had beams not to exceed 8ft 2in to meet trailer regulations.  I believe the parent design for the Ranger 26 was originally sold overseas.

Boards could be pinned down and rated the same as a keel.  The Ranger keel is not a lifting keel while sailing, only for trailering.

It is right in the dimension range for a QT of the era, length and DSPL.

QT racing was fairly strong in NA until about 1977.  It really fell off in 1978, and was non-existent afterward.  The Ranger 26-2 was not a MORC design.

Agreed - I don't believe Ranger advertised it as an IOR boat either.  I was simply refuting every 2nd post in this thread proclaiming it to be an IOR design.

The most similar Australasia Mull designs I can find are the Sonata 26 and 8 which are of the same era but only mention them as an OD http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=7762  No mention of being a QT - but there could well be other Mull designs

I will admit bias with regards my expected dimensions of a QT of that era.  My benchmark would be Magic Bus, which had an IOR displacement of around 2200 lb and beam of over 9 ft.  Attached is some promo material of the production version of Magic Bus (slight development really) which lists displacement as 2240 lb and beam of 9.2.

On the other hand there were boats like the Kirby 26 and Contessa 25 both of which had the pintail sterns with beams of around 9.5 ft and tipped the scales at around 4500 lb.

So yes, it is possible the Ranger rated in at 18.5 ft (if one was ever rated for IOR), but my guess is - given their overall hull and rig dimensions  it would be somewhere between QT and HT, tending more toward QT.  20 ft IOR perhaps?

 

post-52234-0-66656600-1434088032.jpg

post-52234-0-01633500-1434088051.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 12 metre said:

it is possible the Ranger rated in at 18.5 ft (if one was ever rated for IOR),

Somewhere in the recesses of my garage I have an IOR master file, probably from around 1982.

If anyone is interested, I can drag it out and see if any Ranger 26s are listed with an IOR rating...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 12 metre said:

Agreed - I don't believe Ranger advertised it as an IOR boat either.  I was simply refuting every 2nd post in this thread proclaiming it to be an IOR design.

The most similar Australasia Mull designs I can find are the Sonata 26 and 8 which are of the same era but only mention them as an OD http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=7762  No mention of being a QT - but there could well be other Mull designs

I will admit bias with regards my expected dimensions of a QT of that era.  My benchmark would be Magic Bus, which had an IOR displacement of around 2200 lb and beam of over 9 ft.  Attached is some promo material of the production version of Magic Bus (slight development really) which lists displacement as 2240 lb and beam of 9.2.

On the other hand there were boats like the Kirby 26 and Contessa 25 both of which had the pintail sterns with beams of around 9.5 ft and tipped the scales at around 4500 lb.

So yes, it is possible the Ranger rated in at 18.5 ft (if one was ever rated for IOR), but my guess is - given their overall hull and rig dimensions  it would be somewhere between QT and HT, tending more toward QT.  20 ft IOR perhaps?

 

post-52234-0-66656600-1434088032.jpg

post-52234-0-01633500-1434088051.jpg

So you want to know one of the factors that contributed to the demise of the small boat business?

Take a look at those sail prices and compare to what they cost now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, sledracr said:

Somewhere in the recesses of my garage I have an IOR master file, probably from around 1982.

If anyone is interested, I can drag it out and see if any Ranger 26s are listed with an IOR rating...

always interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ILYB-Todd said:

So you want to know one of the factors that contributed to the demise of the small boat business?

Take a look at those sail prices and compare to what they cost now.

yep, that's an $1100 mainsail for a 25' boat. Boat price is a little less than a J70.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AlR said:

I have never seen a "small cone" shaped bump.  That would not have passed muster for the "no hollows in the transverse measurement" part of the rule.  Early, pre-min radius bumps were often a very tight radius transversely, faired longitudinally for many feet.  I'm thinking about the BWL bumping that looked like a chine had been added amidships.

I believe George Hazen was probably offering his VPP services to IOR owners by the late 70s.  I know by about 1980 there were two or three companies offering VPP studies.  None of that mattered, because the VPPs just weren't precise enough.  Tank testing wasn't any better.  Yet many owners spent the money on that stuff.

Here is  a heavily bumped IOR hull.  Can you see the added bumps?

4998640655_281f8a4413_o.jpg

No, I can't see any bumps. I can see the FD and OMD being "pushed" but that was common. I don't see those as a "bumps"

If you see bumps could you please call them out. Maybe we are not defining "bump" the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of 1986 Master File:

Ranger 26's rated from 19.77 to 21.96 in MkIII, and 18.40-20.78 in MkIIIA. Some had inboards, most were OB's. Designed to MORC rule, they rated just below  half-tons of the same design period, and went about as fast as 1/4 tons. 

Ranger 28 was a 1/2 ton, not particularly successful. Ranger 29 was also a good MORC design, in IOR rated about 1/2 foot higher than 1/2 ton.

IMO, the most competitive non-IOR boat in racing IOR in that time and size was the Morgan 27. Rated about 1/2 foot higher than 1/2 ton with an OB. Racing against typical 1/2 tons of the early 70s ( Holland, Peterson, etc) we were a little slower in light air, pretty evenly matched in moderate air (a tick slower upwind, a tick faster offwind), and were faster in a breeze...we could save our time. I think the Morgan 27 was mostly drawn by Craig Walters when he worked there. I think the boat was done before RH worked there. Both were there in '73...and each designed a 1/4 to for the NAs in St Pete. Eyghtene won of course...Walter's Genesis was second IIRC. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bob Perry said:

No, I can't see any bumps. I can see the FD and OMD being "pushed" but that was common. I don't see those as a "bumps"

If you see bumps could you please call them out. Maybe we are not defining "bump" the same way.

I'm thinking he is referring to the: B, CMDI, MDI, and OMDI points.  I agree I don't think he is defining bump in the same way.

There is an old (and unfortunately dilapidated) custom C&C 41 on the hard here (ex-Foxhound, ex-Silver Shadow III) with similar features.  Almost like 4 chines that have been rounded off - but still very noticeable.  I'll see if I can get a photo of her bow on maybe later today.

IIRC, there was a Contessa 43 in the AC in the 70's that had a prominent and quite extensive bump right at the waterline.  The goal there wasn't to manipulate D or B, but rather to lower the CGF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RKoch said:

As of 1986 Master File:

Ranger 26's rated from 19.77 to 21.96 in MkIII, and 18.40-20.78 in MkIIIA. Some had inboards, most were OB's. Designed to MORC rule, they rated about the same as half-tons of the same design period, and went about as fast as 1/4 tons. 

Ranger 28 was a 1/2 ton, not particularly successful. Ranger 29 was also a good MORC design, in IOR rated about 1/2 foot higher than 1/2 ton.

IMO, the most competitive non-IOR boat in racing IOR in that time and size was the Morgan 27. Rated about 1/2 foot higher than 1/2 ton with an OB. Racing against typical 1/2 tons of the early 70s ( Holland, Peterson, etc) we were a little slower in light air, pretty evenly matched in moderate air (a tick slower upwind, a tick faster offwind), and were faster in a breeze...we could save our time. I think the Morgan 27 was mostly drawn by Craig Walters when he worked there. 

 

Nice to have the IOR info on the Ranger 26, but the Ranger 26-2 is the subject here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Bob Perry said:

No, I can't see any bumps. I can see the FD and OMD being "pushed" but that was common. I don't see those as a "bumps"

If you see bumps could you please call them out. Maybe we are not defining "bump" the same way.

That's the point.  That hull has microballoon bumping.  You can't see them.  Most people, and seemingly some designers, don't understand what IOR bumping really looked like.  Hint:  They don't look like inverted traffic cones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob Perry said:

If my memory is any good I think the Ranger 26 rated closer to IOR half ton.  As did the Seaborn THUNDERBIRD class.

A Thunderbird did very well at one of the big QT regattas in the mid to late 70s.  I don't remember which one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 12 metre said:

Agreed - I don't believe Ranger advertised it as an IOR boat either.  I was simply refuting every 2nd post in this thread proclaiming it to be an IOR design.

The most similar Australasia Mull designs I can find are the Sonata 26 and 8 which are of the same era but only mention them as an OD http://sailboatdata.com/viewrecord.asp?class_id=7762  No mention of being a QT - but there could well be other Mull designs

I will admit bias with regards my expected dimensions of a QT of that era.  My benchmark would be Magic Bus, which had an IOR displacement of around 2200 lb and beam of over 9 ft.  Attached is some promo material of the production version of Magic Bus (slight development really) which lists displacement as 2240 lb and beam of 9.2.

On the other hand there were boats like the Kirby 26 and Contessa 25 both of which had the pintail sterns with beams of around 9.5 ft and tipped the scales at around 4500 lb.

So yes, it is possible the Ranger rated in at 18.5 ft (if one was ever rated for IOR), but my guess is - given their overall hull and rig dimensions  it would be somewhere between QT and HT, tending more toward QT.  20 ft IOR perhaps?

 

post-52234-0-66656600-1434088032.jpg

post-52234-0-01633500-1434088051.jpg

Magic Bus has a DSPL of 1198.77kg at the 1976 Worlds.  That's about 2650 lbs.  She was an outlier when it came to most measurements.  Even FUN was close to the trailer width limit.

By the 1978 QT Worlds the Whiting boat was close to 2800 lbs, same as many others.  The winner was around 3500 lbs.

By 1980, the year of the Ranger 26-2, Magic Bus would have rated in at more than 20 feet.  The DLF had come in and crushed the super light boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AlR said:

A Thunderbird did very well at one of the big QT regattas in the mid to late 70s.  I don't remember which one.

T-Birds rated the same as my Kirby QT in PHRF - 195 but I think the T-Bird rated well above QT in IOR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ILYB-Todd said:

always interested

My master-file is dated 2/84

It lists 19 Ranger-26s (no reference to a 26-2), all Mull designed.

IOR IIIA ratings for the 19 boats range from 18.62 to 21.04.      Most are around 385-395 square feet of RSAT, a couple are up over 400, one is at 435.

B is identical for all of them at 8.37

Most appear to have been measured without an outboard aboard - EW is 0.000 for 14 of the 19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bob Perry said:

Jon:'

As I recall the T bird rated closer to half ton IOR. In a breeze it could almost sail to that rating.

A Thunderbird named Seawan tied for 4th on points, ended 5th on tie break, in the 1979 QT North Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sledracr said:

My master-file is dated 2/84

It lists 19 Ranger-26s (no reference to a 26-2), all Mull designed.

IOR IIIA ratings for the 19 boats range from 18.62 to 21.04.      Most are around 385-395 square feet of RSAT, a couple are up over 400, one is at 435.

B is identical for all of them at 8.37

Most appear to have been measured without an outboard aboard - EW is 0.000 for 14 of the 19.

The Mark 2 is a very different boat than the Mark 1 so not of much value but thanks for digging in the old files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sledracr said:
15 hours ago, ILYB-Todd said:

always interested

My master-file is dated 2/84

It lists 19 Ranger-26s (no reference to a 26-2), all Mull designed.

IOR IIIA ratings for the 19 boats range from 18.62 to 21.04.      Most are around 385-395 square feet of RSAT, a couple are up over 400, one is at 435.

B is identical for all of them at 8.37

Most appear to have been measured without an outboard aboard - EW is 0.000 for 14 of the 19.

IIRC the Ranger 23 was advertised as QT but the 26-1 and the 29 sisters weren't any IOR class. All masthead rigs, all relatively fair canoebody designs. Nice boats.

Todd, about the backstay.... you have a tall frac rig, which means that the backstay will both tension the jib luff and bend the mast (mainsail shape). This makes it a primary sail control. Having grown up sailing dinghies, I like frac rigs and the last keelboat I raced actively was about an 8/9 frac, a relatively taller foretriangle than yours. But the basics would be the same, just a bit less mast bend. I had a split control so I could adjust it from either side, on a cascade producing 12:1 both for purchase and for fine control. I steered and worked the backstay constantly because it kept me from bitching at the trimmers, which they appreciated. Good crew morale!

The trade-off is always travel vs purchase. Generally with a cascade, more purchase equals less travel and you may not be able to move the mast top as much as needed. Worth taking time over to get right. I don't know the details of the Ranger 26-2 rig but I bet somebody here at SA does.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

IIRC the Ranger 23 was advertised as QT but the 26-1 and the 29 sisters weren't any IOR class. All masthead rigs, all relatively fair canoebody designs. Nice boats.

Todd, about the backstay.... you have a tall frac rig, which means that the backstay will both tension the jib luff and bend the mast (mainsail shape). This makes it a primary sail control. Having grown up sailing dinghies, I like frac rigs and the last keelboat I raced actively was about an 8/9 frac, a relatively taller foretriangle than yours. But the basics would be the same, just a bit less mast bend. I had a split control so I could adjust it from either side, on a cascade producing 12:1 both for purchase and for fine control. I steered and worked the backstay constantly because it kept me from bitching at the trimmers, which they appreciated. Good crew morale!

The trade-off is always travel vs purchase. Generally with a cascade, more purchase equals less travel and you may not be able to move the mast top as much as needed. Worth taking time over to get right. I don't know the details of the Ranger 26-2 rig but I bet somebody here at SA does.

FB- Doug

As you can see in the photos it has a 4:1 on a 2:1 split backstay with about 36" of 4:1 travel so maybe 15" of backstay adjustment on centerline. I don't know the angles so just a guess. We hope to have her out again this weekend to evaluate the archaic inventory after doing a rig tune this week. not sure how to set the forestay length so it will be trial and error until we get the helm balance right and the shroud tension where we want it.

For now the single sided adjustment will have to do but I understand the benefit of not having to break out the cat as far as crew moral is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ILYB-Todd said:
36 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

...   ...   ... backstay   ...   ...   ...

As you can see in the photos it has a 4:1 on a 2:1 split backstay with about 36" of 4:1 travel so maybe 15" of backstay adjustment on centerline. I don't know the angles so just a guess. We hope to have her out again this weekend to evaluate the archaic inventory after doing a rig tune this week. not sure how to set the forestay length so it will be trial and error until we get the helm balance right and the shroud tension where we want it.

For now the single sided adjustment will have to do but I understand the benefit of not having to break out the cat as far as crew moral is concerned.

Don't take this personally but that backstay control you have now is klunky even for the 1980s. OK for "set it and forget it" which suits many people's sailing styles but you'll never be able to use it for active sail control.

Suggestion: Replace the wire across the "y" with Dyneema, make the tackle a little taller for more adjust ment range. The tackle should be something like a low-stretch 5/16 or 7mm line you can pull confortably, lead both tails forward along the inner corner of the cockpit seat, turn one up to cleat right next to your traveler control and take the other across the traveler, then up & cleat. The nice thing about this boat is that it's small enough to use dinghy size/price gear you don't need the -real- expensive stuff. You will be able to keep your eye on the jib luff and respond to gusts & shifts with the backstay which will keep the jib shape right and open up the leach for gusts without easing the sheet. If you're good you can pull just a smidge of backstay and drop a smidge of traveler (or vice versa) in the same motion, you just 'magically' gain a boatlength every time.

And it lowers the stress level for all on board if you have lazy-ass trimmers who are used to riding along like it's a friggin' school bus, instead of working the sheets and controls to make the boat move it's best. When you get good at it, you might even show your crew what you're doing and they'll get fired up to do it right; much better than the way I learned which was with a skipper who screamed "ease-ease-ease goddammit why are you so slow, now trim-trim-trim GODDAMMIT ARE YOU DEAF!!!" This was a long time ago of course, it's a kinder gentler world now :P

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2017 at 8:43 PM, ILYB-Todd said:

Thank you, grinding it out was tough and dusty. Had a good NIOSH full face respirator to help keep eyes and lungs clear.

Used empty caulk cartridges filled with West System epoxy thickened with colloidal silica to shoot the gap, then three layers of 45x45 biaxial with stitched matt backing to seal the deal.  The photo shows a layer of release fabric we overlayed to make rolling the bubbles out easier. The bubbles are in the release fabric not the glass layup. Worked pretty good.

 

curious, how did you clean / clear out the gap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to add- if you have a tapered mast, it will affect mainsail shape & leach more, jib tension less. My boat did not have a tapered mast, I could crank the backstay really hard in gusts and still play it.

FB- Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AlR said:

A Thunderbird named Seawan tied for 4th on points, ended 5th on tie break, in the 1979 QT North Americans.

They must have has some serious bumping done to that hull. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

 

curious, how did you clean / clear out the gap?

Oh outside, ran a Dremel along the joint to clear out old epoxy enough, then a small diameter router bit on a drill to open it up to about 1/4".

On inside, chased it with a screw driver and the edge of a right angle sanding disk where it would fit. most of the epoxy was on the outside of the lip so inside joint was not horrible-horrible, just horrible. Not for the faint of heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

They must have has some serious bumping done to that hull. :D

Probably a lot of miniature traffic cone shaped protuberances at all the measurement points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ILYB-Todd said:

Oh outside, ran a Dremel along the joint to clear out old epoxy enough, then a small diameter router bit on a drill to open it up to about 1/4".

On inside, chased it with a screw driver and the edge of a right angle sanding disk where it would fit. most of the epoxy was on the outside of the lip so inside joint was not horrible-horrible, just horrible. Not for the faint of heart.

did the hull/deck joint have an exterior tab?   I'm guessing you did this in x foot sections..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grande Mastere Dreade said:

did the hull/deck joint have an exterior tab?   I'm guessing you did this in x foot sections..

 

The deck had a 90 degree lip, the hull had a 180 degree lip with about 1/2" radius the outer edges of the two were glued together with some spluge filling the gap on the inside but not very well. We filled the gap outside and inside and tabbed inside with three layers so it should be sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ILYB-Todd said:

The Mark 2 is a very different boat than the Mark 1 so not of much value but thanks for digging in the old files.

Glad to.

The thing that's bugging me is (and I'll preface this by saying I don't know anything and can generally prove it)... is it reasonable to think that 19 of the original Ranger-26s (built 1969-1975) would have current IOR certificates in 1984?  Or is it possible that those are 26-2s, and the IOR master file just doesn't categorize them correctly?

Probably rhetorical, but thought I'd throw it out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sledracr said:

Glad to.

The thing that's bugging me is (and I'll preface this by saying I don't know anything and can generally prove it)... is it reasonable to think that 19 of the original Ranger-26s (built 1969-1975) would have current IOR certificates in 1984?  Or is it possible that those are 26-2s, and the IOR master file just doesn't categorize them correctly?

Probably rhetorical, but thought I'd throw it out there.

The IOR master files just list the most recent data for a particular boat. If the measurement cert  expired, the latest available data is listed. My Father's boat was measured in '72, probably not renewed after '74, and was still listed in '86.  I suspect the Ranger 26's were all measured and rated in the early 70's, just as IOR was being implemented. Some likely with the 170% genoas they were racing MORC and CCA with. I doubt any were measured or renewed after mid-70s.  Same as you, I did not see any 26-2's listed. I think by the 80s intrest in small IOR boats was dropping way off. People were buying J-24s by that time, or moving to PHRF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok back to the Ranger 26-2 again.

I centered the rig and tensioned the shroud to a G-sharp and adjusted the lowers but not quite sure what tension to put on them. Any suggestions how to set them correctly?

At rest, with zero backstay on the lowers are too tight and cause the mast to bend backwards at the spreaders. I will back them off until the mast is in column with no backstay unless it looks like the main has enough luff curve to handle more pre-bend. beyond that I don't know what fine tuning to do so I'm looking for suggestions.

Plan is to go out this weekend and hoist all the inventory, spinnaker included and see what we got. :(

Oh yeah, can you believe the recoil starter spring for a 7.5 hp outboard costs $140! That's almost half what I paid for the boat. Here's hop[ing some cleaning and a little oil will cure the sluggishness of the recoil and we can put that to bed too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, forgot to ask, has anyone tried installing a forward hatch in a nearly flush deck before? This boat desperately needs ventilation in a big way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, ILYB-Todd said:

Oh yeah, forgot to ask, has anyone tried installing a forward hatch in a nearly flush deck before? This boat desperately needs ventilation in a big way.

Easy to do. Position it where you want and mark for the cutout and then cut the hole. Cover the flange etc. with packing tape to mask it. Mount it with a single screw in the middle of the top & bottom and then squeeze glass fiber thickened epoxy in from the outside edge - a large tongue depressor is good for this as it leaves a nice sized radius.. Do the same from the inside of the flange making sure both sides are as smooth as you can - saves finish work later. When doing the inside it's also the time for sealing the exposed core.

When the bog is cured, remove the hatch and fill in all the voids between the "inner" & "outer" layers of bog. The hatch will release easily because of the packing tape - separates from the epoxy nicely.

Finish per standard procedures.

Doing it this way gives you a nice flat topped radiused lip for the hatch to mount on. If you do a nice job it looks like it came out of the mould that way.

These pics don't show it very well but they're the best I can do. That fore hatch was installed exactly as I described.

 

deck (3).jpg

Picture 103.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now