Could one of the S&S 34 afficionados please give us some background on the Mk2 Tall Rig version.
?? MB ??

The SS34 association is as good a place as any.

www.ss34.org/

Select to expand quote

MuttonBird said..
Could one of the S&S 34 afficionados please give us some background on the Mk2 Tall Rig version.
?? MB ??

Start with this section.
www.ss34.org/index.php/2021/04/02/preparing-for-racing-an-ss34/


Mine is a Mk 1 rig on a Mk 1 hull with a lightweight timber deck. I doubt whether the taller rig would be any better but the point about modern sails in the article is a valid one. The best feature of a Mk 1 is the engine placement.

The tall rig was fitted to both Mk1 and Mk2 hulls. It was in keeping with the rig used by Edward Heath on Morning Cloud.
I've sailed quite a bit on Mk1 boats, Morning Bird was Mk1, and on tall rig Mk1s and tall rig Mk2s. In particular I sailed on Huckleberry quite a bit in WA and here in Sydney and she was a high performance Mk2 racer.
The tall rig gives a marginal increase in performance over the short rig at the disadvantage of increased cost for the rig, rigging and sails and increased work to handle the rig and sails.
The Mk2 hull was a higher cost option from about 1980 but not that many Swarbrick boats had the Mk2 hull. Maybe 10-12 out of 119 Swarbrick S&S34s, I only know of 3 or 4. Morning Bird is the last S&S34 from Swarbricks and she was a Mk1.
The Mk2 hull does significantly improve downwind performance, especially when under spinnaker. I sailed Huckleberry from Freo to Hillary's via Rottnest most of the way under spinnaker.
Some Mk2 hulls have the engine in the middle, and some Mk1s have the engine under the cockpit. It was a buyer choice and many have been modified since build, most moving the engine under the cockpit.
I agree with Ramona, engine in the middle is better and with a bit of design of the table doesn't take up space.
I never had a problem with MBs downwind performance in extreme conditions (40-50kts and 6-8 metre seas) but I wasn't using a spinnaker.
There is of course Azzurro, a Mk2 hull with a custom made rig that has proven to be an excellent race boat for her size. But not many would want to spend what Shane Kearns has spent on her.
All the MacAlpine built boats (about 10 of them) were Mk2 tall rig. They are beautifully factory finished inside from the two I have been on. However one lost its mast in light conditions off Norah Hd and it was found that the chain plates had been made in two parts (to save costs) and that is where it failed. Swarbrick built great boats but went broke. Maybe MacAlpine was trying to make a profit.
Summary, a tall rig won't give much benefit on its own. A Mk2 hull will.

Thanks John. 'Morning Star' is for sale in Melbourne, and looking very smart indeed.

Select to expand quote

MorningBird said..
The tall rig was fitted to both Mk1 and Mk2 hulls. It was in keeping with the rig used by Edward Heath on Morning Cloud.
I've sailed quite a bit on Mk1 boats, Morning Bird was Mk1, and on tall rig Mk1s and tall rig Mk2s. In particular I sailed on Huckleberry quite a bit in WA and here in Sydney and she was a high performance Mk2 racer.
The tall rig gives a marginal increase in performance over the short rig at the disadvantage of increased cost for the rig, rigging and sails and increased work to handle the rig and sails.
The Mk2 hull was a higher cost option from about 1980 but not that many Swarbrick boats had the Mk2 hull. Maybe 10-12 out of 119 Swarbrick S&S34s, I only know of 3 or 4. Morning Bird is the last S&S34 from Swarbricks and she was a Mk1.
The Mk2 hull does significantly improve downwind performance, especially when under spinnaker. I sailed Huckleberry from Freo to Hillary's via Rottnest most of the way under spinnaker.
Some Mk2 hulls have the engine in the middle, and some Mk1s have the engine under the cockpit. It was a buyer choice and many have been modified since build, most moving the engine under the cockpit.
I agree with Ramona, engine in the middle is better and with a bit of design of the table doesn't take up space.
I never had a problem with MBs downwind performance in extreme conditions (40-50kts and 6-8 metre seas) but I wasn't using a spinnaker.
There is of course Azzurro, a Mk2 hull with a custom made rig that has proven to be an excellent race boat for her size. But not many would want to spend what Shane Kearns has spent on her.
All the MacAlpine built boats (about 10 of them) were Mk2 tall rig. They are beautifully factory finished inside from the two I have been on. However one lost its mast in light conditions off Norah Hd and it was found that the chain plates had been made in two parts (to save costs) and that is where it failed. Swarbrick built great boats but went broke. Maybe MacAlpine was trying to make a profit.
Summary, a tall rig won't give much benefit on its own. A Mk2 hull will.

So how many Morning Stars are there? This one advertised in Victoria looks like the original but certainly not extended to 36 ft. Could there be 3?
www.ss34.org/index.php/directory/morningstar/

This Morning Star has the same keel and rudder as mine and the skeg, shaft and folding propeller are the same. My engine is further back though.

yachthub.com/list/yachts-for-sale/used/sail-monohulls/sparkman-stephens-34-mk-2-rig/266259

Select to expand quote

Ramona said..

MorningBird said..
The tall rig was fitted to both Mk1 and Mk2 hulls. It was in keeping with the rig used by Edward Heath on Morning Cloud.
I've sailed quite a bit on Mk1 boats, Morning Bird was Mk1, and on tall rig Mk1s and tall rig Mk2s. In particular I sailed on Huckleberry quite a bit in WA and here in Sydney and she was a high performance Mk2 racer.
The tall rig gives a marginal increase in performance over the short rig at the disadvantage of increased cost for the rig, rigging and sails and increased work to handle the rig and sails.
The Mk2 hull was a higher cost option from about 1980 but not that many Swarbrick boats had the Mk2 hull. Maybe 10-12 out of 119 Swarbrick S&S34s, I only know of 3 or 4. Morning Bird is the last S&S34 from Swarbricks and she was a Mk1.
The Mk2 hull does significantly improve downwind performance, especially when under spinnaker. I sailed Huckleberry from Freo to Hillary's via Rottnest most of the way under spinnaker.
Some Mk2 hulls have the engine in the middle, and some Mk1s have the engine under the cockpit. It was a buyer choice and many have been modified since build, most moving the engine under the cockpit.
I agree with Ramona, engine in the middle is better and with a bit of design of the table doesn't take up space.
I never had a problem with MBs downwind performance in extreme conditions (40-50kts and 6-8 metre seas) but I wasn't using a spinnaker.
There is of course Azzurro, a Mk2 hull with a custom made rig that has proven to be an excellent race boat for her size. But not many would want to spend what Shane Kearns has spent on her.
All the MacAlpine built boats (about 10 of them) were Mk2 tall rig. They are beautifully factory finished inside from the two I have been on. However one lost its mast in light conditions off Norah Hd and it was found that the chain plates had been made in two parts (to save costs) and that is where it failed. Swarbrick built great boats but went broke. Maybe MacAlpine was trying to make a profit.
Summary, a tall rig won't give much benefit on its own. A Mk2 hull will.

So how many Morning Stars are there? This one advertised in Victoria looks like the original but certainly not extended to 36 ft. Could there be 3?
www.ss34.org/index.php/directory/morningstar/

This Morning Star has the same keel and rudder as mine and the skeg, shaft and folding propeller are the same. My engine is further back though.

yachthub.com/list/yachts-for-sale/used/sail-monohulls/sparkman-stephens-34-mk-2-rig/266259

There are a few of them. With the desire to have Morning in the name the combinations weren't many. A few Morning Tides too.

Select to expand quote

MuttonBird said..
Thanks John. 'Morning Star' is for sale in Melbourne, and looking very smart indeed.

One thing you want to consider is that the earlier 'round' hatch boats used an earlier resin and are more prone to osmosis than the later 'square' hatch boats.
I had MB soda blasted and there was no, absolutely none, osmosis.
This needn't be a stopper issue as not all boats suffered and I haven't heard of a yacht sinking due to osmosis. Just something you should check, what repairs have been done already (maybe hiding a problem) and what osmosis is there now.
I sold Morning Bird for $42,500. Looking at the photos of Morning Star she is in better presentation than MB and with a new engine. MB was well set up for short handed sailing with a Fleming etc. Subject to osmosis and survey if you buy Morning Star for the asking price, you should get her for a fair bit less, she seems a good buy.

I took this photo a while back to compare the high of the two rigs.
The tall rig of the ss34 is still shorter than a Catalina 34 with the single spreader mast head rig.




both these square front hatched boats both had gelcoat problems and blisters