Top: original drawings of Gypsy Moth IV with a sharp reminder to the builder of the need to save weight wherever possible – a good effort for a 1966 singlehanded round-the-world yacht. Production-built Maïcas (left) were popular and successful under the RORC Rule during the 1960s. The Maïca and Illingworth & Primrose’s Blue Charm designs shared the same waterline length of 24ft but with wildly different displacements. Outlaw in build at Souters (above) and Sir Francis Chichester and Gypsy Moth IV in the South Atlantic
Primrose were often commissioned to design the rigs for many other designs than their own, including the refit of the royal yacht Bloodhound. But their most signifi- cant contribution was to the Van de Stadt- designed Maxi Stormvogel in 1961 – famously created by the triumvirate of Ricus van de Stadt (hull shape, keel and rudder), Laurent Giles (structure, deck layout and interior) and Illingworth and Primrose topping it all off with their classic high-aspect ratio ketch/cutter sailplans. Needless to say, this potpourri of design talent produced one of the most iconic and successful ocean racers of all time. If one looks at some of the Illingworth-
designed sailplans from as far back as 1954 on the Aero Marine-built Mouse of Malham, for example, you can see a clear path to racing yachts like the Britton Chance-designed Equation and the Farr Whitbread Maxis such as Steinlager in the use of ultra high-aspect ratio ketch rigs. Mouse of Malham successfully exploited the RORC rating rule as Chance and Farr were to do years later under IOR. It is ironic that the development of tiny
high-aspect ratio mainsails and giant fore triangles, pioneered by John Illingworth with Myth of Malham in 1947, finally became the rig of choice in and around 1965 for almost all designers when Dick Carter and Sparkman & Stephens finally twigged that this was the way to go under the RORC Rule. It became the dominant rig configura- tion under IOR as well until around the early 1980s when the equally rule-inspired big mainsail, fractional rig took over. The irony was, however, that I & P con-
tinued to believe that their beloved cutter rig was still the way to go despite advances in sail technology making the single big overlap genoa clearly superior. This was arguably detrimental to the performances
of the late-generation I & P designs. Funny now, however, that further recent advances in sail design and materials have given twin headsail rigs the chance for a comeback. A further irony of both the Malham and
Illingworth & Primrose story is that while it began so spectacularly combining light displacement with superlative upwind performance it, more or less, ended with the super-heavy Merle of Malham Quarter Tonner coming up short just as a whole new raft of dinghy-style, relatively light- weight small ocean racers from myriad designers started dominating. An appraisal, such as this, of a great and
innovative design partnership cannot ignore the mixed feelings engendered by Gypsy Moth IV. In terms of succeeding in what Sir Francis Chichester wanted to achieve, Gypsy Moth was a success. She completed, in record time, a singlehanded, one-stop voyage around the globe. In 1966 when Gypsy Moth was
designed this really was an adventure into the unknown, with little past experience available to help with the boat concept. Illingworth & Primrose were the obvious designers of choice for Chichester. They were masters of lightweight, but stiff and strong boat construction, masters of a rig concept that could be efficiently deployed through a number of small, easily handled sails and of course masters of light dis- placement which, logically, would be ideal for a race against time on a predominantly offwind course. Chichester himself provided the key
factor of the design. He believed that the area of the mainsail should be limited to what he felt he could handle. The rest of the rig would grow from this limit. In turn this dictated a maximum waterline length allied to a minimum displacement. So far so good!
The fact that the rudder would be keel
hung was a given. Illingworth & Primrose had, after all, built almost their entire offshore racing success on an underwater shape that combined a rudder attached to as short a keel as was feasible. This inevitably led to racing boats that were hard to control downwind. In fact, some of the more radical designs like Outlaw, Oryx and Feather III featured daggerboards behind the keel to aid directional control. If, and it’s a pretty big if under the
circumstances, the designer/skipper combo had taken a leaf out of the Van de Stadt playbook and gone for a big separate spade or skeg-hung rudder, then the control problems that plagued Chichester’s voyage may well have been averted. Gypsy Moth also suffered stability
issues, which at best made for uncomfort- able sailing and robbed the design of upwind and reaching performance. Con- trary to their design philosophies of light displacement married to big beam, as seen on the similarly sized Outlaw, Gypsy Moth was given a very narrow beam by the designers to create an easily driven but long hull shape that could get the best out of the small sails demanded by Chichester. This could have worked well except demands were also made on unnecessary interior volume and headroom. Perhaps if Gypsy Moth had been a more focused machine she may well have given her skipper a more comfortable ride. And so, in some ways, this highly influ-
ential design story ends a little disappoint- ingly. But this, in some way or another, is usually the fate of innovative and creative talent that produces so much at its peak, But in the particular case of John Illing- worth he gave so much more to our sport of ocean racing than just some sublime and iconic racing yacht designs.
SEAHORSE 45
q
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118
