The Summer 1993 DCA journal was strong on stability, with its articles by Peter Bick, Talbot Kirk, and the reprint of Eric Coleman's prescient piece on self-righting, non-capsizeable dinghies. For me it was also timely.

I was reminded of the hen's confessing to the pig her concern over the bacon-and-egg problem. "You may be concerned," replied the pig, "but I am involved."

Brian McClellan described in the autumn issue my role as the pig. Briefly I capsized my Tideway in Loch Creran when no other boats were around. I righted her twice, only to have her roll right over on top of me, and then spent half-an-hour sitting on her upturned hull doing standard horizontal arm distress signals, before a Mayday was issued on my behalf in response to a phone report by someone on shore. It was a long half-hour, but I was fortunate in being reported and picked up so promptly.

As Brian's narrative indicates, I subsequently had some good sailing in the Tideway, and the improvements I made to her rig and reefing arrangements proved successful.

Additionally once in a Force 3, I ventured from Loch Creran across Loch Linnhe to Loch a'Choire in very pleasant conditions. These lasted most of the way back, however between Lismore and Appin, funnelling through the Lynn of Lorn, I met a good Force 5 blowing against the tide. Fortunately it was the scrag-end of a neap, but it was still quite unpleasant. The boat survived it handsomely, but I knew that if I made a mistake and turned her over again, there was nothing she could do to assist me. I should have my work cut out to climb onto her bottom in such a sea. It was exciting but took much of the pleasure from the outing. I came to the conclusion that my ambitions exceeded the demands I could reasonably put on a boat which on a lake or estuary was perfectly satisfactory.

Notwithstanding the exploits of Roger Barnes - to whom I doff my hat - my mind moved towards a craft which would be strongly resistant to being knocked down and which, if I were really stupid, would right itself instead of floating upside down.

Following Eric Coleman I scanned Dixon Kemp (1891) to see what small boats were really like in the age of sail. In the event he mainly deals with racing craft rather than workboats. Many of these were vast by our standards, with paid skipper and crew. Small ones were few and a DCA type of the time would probably have had a sailing canoe. However, generally they were made not to turn turtle, and I attach some illustrations and a table of the main reported data relating to boats of the length in which we are generally interested. For comparison I quote figures for modern ballasted and un-ballasted boats which I have to hand.

Though there are wide variations, in general the 1891 boats were narrower, heavier and more heavily canvassed than their modern counterparts, and carried their ballast lower down. They were powerful and would punch through waves which our boats would ride over. When reefed they could probably stand conditions which would knock the average DCA craft flat. However I suspect that the limiting effect of the waterline length on the speed of displacement craft was not fully understood, and that some of the boats were profitlessly over canvassed. If flooded their great weight must have made them liable to sink. Few could meet the DCA requirements for trailerability, and fewer would meet mine - to fit in my garage.

The modern ballasted craft are much lighter for their length and carry much less sail. How performance compares I do not know. I should like to think however - getting back to the problem of the pig, that they would not be liable to serious knockdown in conditions in which the DCA normally sails, and that they would be self righting. Again, some of them are a bit big for chez Jones, and probably a handful to launch and recover single-handed.

The un-ballasted craft derive their stability from their hull lines. Undoubtedly many have good stability, but all in extremis I fear will turn over. Whether they will completely invert or will lie gently on their side rests with the individual design.

I do not think we can transfer the thinking of 1891 to 1993, even though I cast covetous eyes on 'Vril'! However I do think we can learn something about the judicious use of ballast in cruising dinghies. For me the DCA ideal is epitomised by Robert Manry's 'Tinkerbelle' in which he crossed the Atlantic in 1968. A 13½ ft clinker dinghy; she was equipped for the trip with a little cabin, a minimum sized cockpit, and a 100 lb daggerplate in place of her lighter centreplate. During the voyage she was knocked down ten times, but she always self-righted and luffed up to wait for him to climb back in.

Had I kept my Tideway I should have been tempted to put 100 lbs of lead in her bottom, if indeed not to install a heavier plate. Her 400 lbs of positive buoyancy would still support her if flooded, plus myself, the outboard and the gear. In fact however, the chance of her flooding through putting a gunwale under should be much reduced. Even if she flooded she might not invert, and even if she did she might not roll back over so readily after being righted.

We have our 'own' Roamer whose self-righting capability is well known, but which as dinghies go is pretty heavy. One of our former Roamer owners, looking for a lighter craft to launch and recover hinted that he was thinking of 'roamerizing' a Mirror. Even in such a small craft I think I might have felt less daunted than in my larger but un-ballasted dinghy when crossing the Lynn of Lorn. I look forward to a progress report.

As for myself, I am now about to try a WW Potter 'C'. They are self-draining and supposedly self-righting, and they do have a hard roof. Also 'Kaipara' sits nicely in my garage. I do not think she will have the speed and grace of the Tideway, but I do hope that her lines and a bit of ballast will prevent a repeat of my having to rely totally on someone else to get me out of the mess I had got myself into. We'll see.