RE: [bolger] Reduced size Sneakeasy
Hal and others,
Here is Tracy O'Brien's web site.http://www.tracyobrien.com/boatpage.htm
Jim C
Here is Tracy O'Brien's web site.http://www.tracyobrien.com/boatpage.htm
Jim C
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Lynch [mailto:hal@...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 11:56 AM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [bolger] Reduced size Sneakeasy
>
>
> >Actually, the Kayleigh plans I'm looking at seem to have a rockered
> >bottom....the Kayleigh is also designed as a low-powered outboard pocket
> >cruiser.
>
>
> Where can I find a picture, sketch, drawing, whatever of the
> Kayleigh. It sounds interesting.
>
> hal
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> - no flogging dead horses
> - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> - stay on topic and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
I always thought it was a dory skiff. - Chuck
> So what's Mike O'Brien's Kayleigh, a power sharpie or a
> flatiron skiff? I'd say yes.
We've got a Flatiron Rd here in southern Maryland that's not flat or
straight by a long shot.
:-)
Bill Dodson
straight by a long shot.
:-)
Bill Dodson
--- In bolger@y..., Chris Crandall <crandall@u...> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 wmrpage@a... wrote:
>
<snip>
> But, why call something a "flatiron" that isn't flat?
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001wmrpage@...wrote:
language he uses is not the same as what is typical in certain areas
(e.g., Sinpuxent skiff vs. seaside bateau).
But, why call something a "flatiron" that isn't flat?
> I have never before seen the notion that a "flatiron" skiff denotes a boatWell, it's hard to argue with Chappelle, other than to say that the
> with no rocker to the bottom.
language he uses is not the same as what is typical in certain areas
(e.g., Sinpuxent skiff vs. seaside bateau).
But, why call something a "flatiron" that isn't flat?
Flatiron skiffs do have rocker, at least if they're any good. Ones
designed for OB motors might have the run aft flattened out some, but
I've never seen one with a dead-flat bottom. The distinction between
a flatiron skiff and a sharpie is kind of fuzzy. As I understand it,
sharpies were originally long narrow oyster-tonging sailboats out of
New Haven CT. They were, say, 25' and up, and had a characteristic
rig (triangular sails with sprit booms, one mast or two almost
identical masts) and a really dreadful shallow-draft balanced
rudder. The concept of a long narrow hard-chine boat spread widely,
even to France, with many local variations in size and rig.
Flatiron skiffs OTOH, were small and ubiquitous, found anywhere folks
needed a small, cheap, easily-built boat. They were usually wider in
relation to their length than actual sharpies, (although they pretty
much had to be in small sizes - you can't make a decent 12' rowing
skiff with a 30" beam) and were rowed and sailed with a variety of
rigs. To confuse things further, there were things called "sharpie
skiffs" which for the life of me I can't tell from a flatiron . . .
Both types always had a cross-planked bottom, at least until plywood
became readily available.
So what's Mike O'Brien's Kayleigh, a power sharpie or a flatiron
skiff? I'd say yes.
designed for OB motors might have the run aft flattened out some, but
I've never seen one with a dead-flat bottom. The distinction between
a flatiron skiff and a sharpie is kind of fuzzy. As I understand it,
sharpies were originally long narrow oyster-tonging sailboats out of
New Haven CT. They were, say, 25' and up, and had a characteristic
rig (triangular sails with sprit booms, one mast or two almost
identical masts) and a really dreadful shallow-draft balanced
rudder. The concept of a long narrow hard-chine boat spread widely,
even to France, with many local variations in size and rig.
Flatiron skiffs OTOH, were small and ubiquitous, found anywhere folks
needed a small, cheap, easily-built boat. They were usually wider in
relation to their length than actual sharpies, (although they pretty
much had to be in small sizes - you can't make a decent 12' rowing
skiff with a 30" beam) and were rowed and sailed with a variety of
rigs. To confuse things further, there were things called "sharpie
skiffs" which for the life of me I can't tell from a flatiron . . .
Both types always had a cross-planked bottom, at least until plywood
became readily available.
So what's Mike O'Brien's Kayleigh, a power sharpie or a flatiron
skiff? I'd say yes.
--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/26/01 3:27:02 PM Central Daylight Time,
> crandall@u... writes:
> I have never before seen the notion that a "flatiron" skiff denotes
a boat
> with no rocker to the bottom.
In a message dated 4/26/01 3:27:02 PM Central Daylight Time,
crandall@... writes:
crandall@... writes:
it has rocker.
That makes it not a flatiron.
I have never before seen the notion that a "flatiron" skiff denotes a boat
with no rocker to the bottom. Pages 100-101 of my 1951 edition of Chapelle's
"American Small Sailing Craft" exemplify what he considered a "flatiron"
skiff. It has substantial rocker aft of amidships - a characteristic
necessary if this type was to row or sail with any ability at all. I have the
published WoodenBoat indexes through issue #78 and find no entry for a
"flatiron" in them, although I'm reasonably sure I've seen boats on its pages
with rocker similarly designed. In any event the term "flatiron" clearly
pre-dates planing outboard motor-powered craft, which are the only sort which
could benefit from dead-flat buttocks. My inference is that the term
"flatiron" reflects the conjunction of a single-chined (i.e. flat-bottomed,
not un-rockered) hull with a plan view similar to that of an old "flat iron"
(heated on a stove and used to press clothes)
Humbly offered, keeping in mind the Duheim-Quine hypothesis and its
corollaries,
Bill in MN
> Here's the site for Tracy O'Brien's Kayleigh design:OK, I have to eat some words. O'Brien used to market Kayleigh as a
>http://www.localaccess.com/tracy/Kayliegh.htm
flatiron skiff, but the website clearly markets is as a sharpie, and
indicates it has rocker.
That makes it not a flatiron.
But, he *used* to say it was. Alas, I swallowed his line.
It's a fun looking boat though, eh?
Keep in mind that the deck is made of long fingers of solid mahagony.
Chris Crandallcrandall@...(785) 864-4131
Department of Psychology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045
I have data convincingly disconfirming the Duhem-Quine hypothesis.
Here's the site for Tracy O'Brien's Kayleigh design:
http://www.localaccess.com/tracy/Kayliegh.htm
http://www.localaccess.com/tracy/Kayliegh.htm
--- In bolger@y..., Hal Lynch <hal@c...> wrote:
> Where can I find a picture, sketch, drawing, whatever of the
> Kayleigh. It sounds interesting.
>Actually, the Kayleigh plans I'm looking at seem to have a rockeredWhere can I find a picture, sketch, drawing, whatever of the
>bottom....the Kayleigh is also designed as a low-powered outboard pocket
>cruiser.
Kayleigh. It sounds interesting.
hal
Actually, the Kayleigh plans I'm looking at seem to have a rockered
bottom....the Kayleigh is also designed as a low-powered outboard pocket
cruiser.
Jim C.
bottom....the Kayleigh is also designed as a low-powered outboard pocket
cruiser.
Jim C.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Crandall [mailto:crandall@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 12:20 PM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [bolger] Reduced size Sneakeasy
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Jim Chamberlin RCSIS wrote:
> > What makes the Kayleigh a flat-iron skiff and not a sharpie? I don't
> > know the difference, I guess.
>
> A couple oif things for sure. One is that a flat-iron skiff has a
> dead-flat bottom, no rocker at all. Sharpies usually have rocker.
>
> Second, flat-iron skiffs are not usually sailboats, and all the things
> that make a skiff OK for sail are missing on a flat-iron (location of
> widest beam, width of transom, centerboard/leeboard, etc. The Kayleigh
> has a clipper-bow, typical for a flat-iron, not OK for a sharpie.
>
> Other things, too, but my spouse says I must go run errands and eat lunch.
> Can others pitch in and give a better answer?
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> - no flogging dead horses
> - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> - stay on topic and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Jim Chamberlin RCSIS wrote:
dead-flat bottom, no rocker at all. Sharpies usually have rocker.
Second, flat-iron skiffs are not usually sailboats, and all the things
that make a skiff OK for sail are missing on a flat-iron (location of
widest beam, width of transom, centerboard/leeboard, etc. The Kayleigh
has a clipper-bow, typical for a flat-iron, not OK for a sharpie.
Other things, too, but my spouse says I must go run errands and eat lunch.
Can others pitch in and give a better answer?
> What makes the Kayleigh a flat-iron skiff and not a sharpie? I don'tA couple oif things for sure. One is that a flat-iron skiff has a
> know the difference, I guess.
dead-flat bottom, no rocker at all. Sharpies usually have rocker.
Second, flat-iron skiffs are not usually sailboats, and all the things
that make a skiff OK for sail are missing on a flat-iron (location of
widest beam, width of transom, centerboard/leeboard, etc. The Kayleigh
has a clipper-bow, typical for a flat-iron, not OK for a sharpie.
Other things, too, but my spouse says I must go run errands and eat lunch.
Can others pitch in and give a better answer?
Now that I'm an official registered user of this group (and lurker
for over 11k messages), I'll post what I sent to Don the other day.
I'm the owner of a Sneakeasy (bought from Steve Gould last year) and
have some experience with it's characteristics. Many designs can be
brought up or down 10% without too much fuss. However, the
Sneakeasy's over 6.5-1 L/B ratio may stretch this rule of thumb too
far.
In the case of Sneakeasy, this would yield a boat about 24' long with
a 3.5' beam. Note that IMO, the space between the "tails" should NOT
be scaled as this is already a tad too tight for the 30hp engine that
I'm using and the resultant smaller scale would probably be too tight
for anything that your brother planned on using. Smaller tails would
reduce the buoyancy and planning surface aft to some degree. Seating
would not be side-side (at least not in my size), so it would have
room for 2 (fore n aft) or with skinny people side-side. As can be
seen, this is becoming less practical.
The efficiency of the Sneakeasy comes from the high L/B ratio with
flat bottom. Very low resistance. Higher than 20-30hp is apparently
discouraged as chine tripping becomes an issue. Since the people
will be sitting at the same height in a reduced size implementation,
the CG will be higher which will compound the stability issues.
Your brother's desire for a Sneakeasy look is understood. I can't go
anywhere without lots of complements (thanks to Steve's good work).
Ultimately, Bolger should be contacted as his opinion means alot more
that the musings of the rest of us.
Good luck and let us know what y'all decide to do.
Jim
for over 11k messages), I'll post what I sent to Don the other day.
I'm the owner of a Sneakeasy (bought from Steve Gould last year) and
have some experience with it's characteristics. Many designs can be
brought up or down 10% without too much fuss. However, the
Sneakeasy's over 6.5-1 L/B ratio may stretch this rule of thumb too
far.
In the case of Sneakeasy, this would yield a boat about 24' long with
a 3.5' beam. Note that IMO, the space between the "tails" should NOT
be scaled as this is already a tad too tight for the 30hp engine that
I'm using and the resultant smaller scale would probably be too tight
for anything that your brother planned on using. Smaller tails would
reduce the buoyancy and planning surface aft to some degree. Seating
would not be side-side (at least not in my size), so it would have
room for 2 (fore n aft) or with skinny people side-side. As can be
seen, this is becoming less practical.
The efficiency of the Sneakeasy comes from the high L/B ratio with
flat bottom. Very low resistance. Higher than 20-30hp is apparently
discouraged as chine tripping becomes an issue. Since the people
will be sitting at the same height in a reduced size implementation,
the CG will be higher which will compound the stability issues.
Your brother's desire for a Sneakeasy look is understood. I can't go
anywhere without lots of complements (thanks to Steve's good work).
Ultimately, Bolger should be contacted as his opinion means alot more
that the musings of the rest of us.
Good luck and let us know what y'all decide to do.
Jim
--- In bolger@y..., StepHydro@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 04/23/2001 9:<BR56:<BR48 AM
> Eastern Daylight , vachew@v... writes:> For a small outboard, 8hp
or
> less, I would consider the Bolger Bee.
>
>
> Well, it is an interesting boat, but it certainly doesn't look much
like a
> 30s era runabout. That is one of the prime criteria for my
brother's project.
> That's what makes the Sneakeasy "just right' except for the length.
>
> Cheers/Carron
Fritz built his sneakeasy in two parts because of shop room ,
then joined them.
http://www.alaska.net/~fritzf/Boats/Sneakeasy/Sneakeasy.htm
HJ
% Harrywelshman@...
then joined them.
http://www.alaska.net/~fritzf/Boats/Sneakeasy/Sneakeasy.htm
HJ
> Why not a two-piece sneakeasy that breaks apart just_ _ _ _ _
> forward of the windsheild? The rear 15 or so feet
> is carried on a trailer, and the forward 12 feet could
> go on a car-top carrier. Bolger has designed "sectioned"
> boats before.
% Harrywelshman@...
--- In bolger@y..., StepHydro@a... wrote:
forward of the windsheild? The rear 15 or so feet
is carried on a trailer, and the forward 12 feet could
go on a car-top carrier. Bolger has designed "sectioned"
boats before.
> In a message dated 04/23/2001 9:<BR56:<BR48 AMor
> Eastern Daylight , vachew@v... writes:> For a small outboard, 8hp
> less, I would consider the Bolger Bee.like a
>
>
> Well, it is an interesting boat, but it certainly doesn't look much
> 30s era runabout. That is one of the prime criteria for my brother'sproject.
> That's what makes the Sneakeasy "just right' except for the length.Why not a two-piece sneakeasy that breaks apart just
>
> Cheers/Carron
forward of the windsheild? The rear 15 or so feet
is carried on a trailer, and the forward 12 feet could
go on a car-top carrier. Bolger has designed "sectioned"
boats before.
In a message dated 04/23/2001 9:<BR56:<BR48 AM
Eastern Daylight ,vachew@...writes:> For a small outboard, 8hp or
less, I would consider the Bolger Bee.
Well, it is an interesting boat, but it certainly doesn't look much like a
30s era runabout. That is one of the prime criteria for my brother's project.
That's what makes the Sneakeasy "just right' except for the length.
Cheers/Carron
Eastern Daylight ,vachew@...writes:> For a small outboard, 8hp or
less, I would consider the Bolger Bee.
Well, it is an interesting boat, but it certainly doesn't look much like a
30s era runabout. That is one of the prime criteria for my brother's project.
That's what makes the Sneakeasy "just right' except for the length.
Cheers/Carron
For a small outboard, 8hp or less, I would consider the Bolger Bee.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/articles/bee/index.htm
This link has a complete text history of the building of a Bee, as well
as several pictures. I looks like one could bring the deck back to
midship, add a windshield, and generally fit it out to resemble the
Sneakeasy. You might even add the beaver tail extensions to the transom
a la Sneakeasy. According to the text it could easily be lengthened to
around 10 feet.
Vince Chew
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/articles/bee/index.htm
This link has a complete text history of the building of a Bee, as well
as several pictures. I looks like one could bring the deck back to
midship, add a windshield, and generally fit it out to resemble the
Sneakeasy. You might even add the beaver tail extensions to the transom
a la Sneakeasy. According to the text it could easily be lengthened to
around 10 feet.
Vince Chew
I believe it is. He also has a fancier version which has always interested me. Clyde
Chris Crandall wrote:
Chris Crandall wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001phillip_lea@...wrote:
> > Back to PUXE ... 22-5 overall, 21-4 waterline, 9.5 inches draft, 1250
> > lbs. displacement, including 600 lbs. passengers, very little rocker
>
> Making a quick search to see a picture of Puxe on the web, I found that TF
> Jones has another book slated for publication:
>
> Thomas Firth Jones "New Plywood Boats"
> 256 pp. July 2001. paper $19.95
> ISBN 1 57409 096 8
>
> Apparently Sheridan House will be publishing it:
>
>http://www.sheridanhouse.com/catalog/newbooks/newplywood.html
>
> Is that Puxe on the cover?
>
> -Chris
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> - no flogging dead horses
> - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> - stay on topic and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
He might want to look at "selway-fisher.com" as Paul Fisher has a small slipper launch. Clyde
StepHydro@...wrote:
StepHydro@...wrote:
> In a message dated 04/20/2001 1:<BR22:<BR34 PM
> Eastern Daylight ,jim@...writes:> Tracy O'Brien has a cute little
> sharpie that uses a very low
> > power outboard(2 to 7 hp) in a well. It has a little cabin, and
> > he claims that building is straight forward. It has a very
> > classic look. It might be one for you to consider.
>
> Jim,
>
> I've always liked Kayleigh for looks. However, this "exercise" for my brother
> (not on the 'ent) is to find an outboard *runabout* with classic looks for
> him to use his old motors on. The Sneakeasy has the looks, but is too large
> (long) for his needs.
> That boat appears to be lapstrake, but is about the same size.The last and current issues of WoodenBoat have a step by step article
> Puxe has flat sides, and hard chines.
on building Handy Billy, a somewhat similar 21' power launch based on
a design by William Hand. It's batten-seam construction. Well worth a
look, if only to sharpen your eye, design-wise, for what you want.
Peter
No. That boat appears to be lapstrake, but is about the same size.
Puxe has flat sides, and hard chines.
Phil
Chris Crandall asked:
Puxe has flat sides, and hard chines.
Phil
Chris Crandall asked:
>http://www.sheridanhouse.com/catalog/newbooks/newplywood.html
> Is that Puxe on the cover?
> -Chris
Chris,
What makes the Kayleigh a flat-iron skiff and not a sharpie? I don't know
the difference, I guess.
Jim C.
What makes the Kayleigh a flat-iron skiff and not a sharpie? I don't know
the difference, I guess.
Jim C.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Crandall [mailto:crandall@...]
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 11:04 AM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Reduced size Sneakeasy
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Jim Goeckermann wrote:
>
> > Tracy O'Brien has a cute little sharpie that uses a very low
> > power outboard(2 to 7 hp) in a well.
>
> It is a cute little boat, but on a tweaky note, it's a flat-iron skiff,
> not a sharpie.
>
> $SET TWEAKINESS=OFF.
>
> Sorry.
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> - no flogging dead horses
> - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> - stay on topic and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Puxe and Puxe II and the Barbados Customs Launch, all similiar in design are
also found in Jones' book, "Boats to Go."
Jim
also found in Jones' book, "Boats to Go."
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> From:phillip_lea@...[mailto:phillip_lea@...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 6:03 PM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [bolger] Re: Reduced size Sneakeasy
>
>
> And I found the issue of which I speak: a classic SBJ, #26, Aug/Sep
> 1982, it has Thomas Firth Jones's 22-foot PUXE, deadrise launch; has
> Bolger's second cartoon, Modest Marina Cruiser (which appears to
> be quite similar to a design that appeared very recently in
> Messing About in Boats); and has the lines of the 14' California SEA
> MEW. If I had a scanner, I would post it for a short time before the
> intellectual property police found me.
>
> Does anyone know who owns the rights to the SBJ? Anyone know? How
> does one run down the rights of such a publication?
>
> Back to PUXE ... 22-5 overall, 21-4 waterline, 9.5 inches draft, 1250
> lbs. displacement, including 600 lbs. passengers, very little rocker
> in the chines. He trimmed with 4 passengers midships, all gear
> forward, and recommended a 7.5 to 10 horsepower -- 8 knots with 7
> aboard. 10 HP with 2 aboard she did >10 knots. He fabricated a
> midship coaming-mounted tiller arm that controlled the outboards
> tiller. He stated that he burned 0.4 gph at 10 knots for 25 mpg.
> I believe he has a web page.
>
> Phil Lea
> Russellville, Arkansas
>
> --- In bolger@y..., phillip_lea@y... wrote:
> > If you are thinking of of Thomas Firth Jone's design from an mid
> > 1980's issue, it was the size you speak of, deep vee forward
> > transitioning to an almost flat after section, a semi-displacement
> > hull that moved on a low horsepower engine. Jone's design had a
> > cross-planked bottom to get the vee forward and flat stern
> > section. Looked very retro and of course would sip fuel. Mr. Jones
> > still designs and has written "Boats that Go" which I believe
> > emphasizes his desire for moderate speed with low horsepower. On
> the
> > future book purchase list.
> >
> > Phil Lea
> >
> > --- In bolger@y..., pateson@c... wrote:
> > > Speed of those boats has to do with length to width and
> > > weight. "Long, narrow boats" Could add tiller extension, either
> > > comercial, or homemade, or simple side mounted tiller to cable
> > > streering.
> > > Saw a similar sized open boat in old Small Boat Journal. I think
> > > about 20+' by 4'. It worked great, but their main concern was
> > > minimal weight. No wake planing.
> > > Pat
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
> - no flogging dead horses
> - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
> - stay on topic and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001, Jim Goeckermann wrote:
not a sharpie.
$SET TWEAKINESS=OFF.
Sorry.
> Tracy O'Brien has a cute little sharpie that uses a very lowIt is a cute little boat, but on a tweaky note, it's a flat-iron skiff,
> power outboard(2 to 7 hp) in a well.
not a sharpie.
$SET TWEAKINESS=OFF.
Sorry.
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001phillip_lea@...wrote:
Jones has another book slated for publication:
Thomas Firth Jones "New Plywood Boats"
256 pp. July 2001. paper $19.95
ISBN 1 57409 096 8
Apparently Sheridan House will be publishing it:
http://www.sheridanhouse.com/catalog/newbooks/newplywood.html
Is that Puxe on the cover?
-Chris
> Back to PUXE ... 22-5 overall, 21-4 waterline, 9.5 inches draft, 1250Making a quick search to see a picture of Puxe on the web, I found that TF
> lbs. displacement, including 600 lbs. passengers, very little rocker
Jones has another book slated for publication:
Thomas Firth Jones "New Plywood Boats"
256 pp. July 2001. paper $19.95
ISBN 1 57409 096 8
Apparently Sheridan House will be publishing it:
http://www.sheridanhouse.com/catalog/newbooks/newplywood.html
Is that Puxe on the cover?
-Chris
In a message dated 04/20/2001 1:<BR22:<BR34 PM
Eastern Daylight ,jim@...writes:> Tracy O'Brien has a cute little
sharpie that uses a very low
I've always liked Kayleigh for looks. However, this "exercise" for my brother
(not on the 'ent) is to find an outboard *runabout* with classic looks for
him to use his old motors on. The Sneakeasy has the looks, but is too large
(long) for his needs.
He has now started looking for a small Shell Lake, Thompson, Penn Yan,
Wolverine, etc., that might not need too much restoration. However, a
reduced Sneakeasy is still high on his list.
Thanks for the re-look at Kayleigh :-)
Cheers/Don
Eastern Daylight ,jim@...writes:> Tracy O'Brien has a cute little
sharpie that uses a very low
> power outboard(2 to 7 hp) in a well. It has a little cabin, andJim,
> he claims that building is straight forward. It has a very
> classic look. It might be one for you to consider.
I've always liked Kayleigh for looks. However, this "exercise" for my brother
(not on the 'ent) is to find an outboard *runabout* with classic looks for
him to use his old motors on. The Sneakeasy has the looks, but is too large
(long) for his needs.
He has now started looking for a small Shell Lake, Thompson, Penn Yan,
Wolverine, etc., that might not need too much restoration. However, a
reduced Sneakeasy is still high on his list.
Thanks for the re-look at Kayleigh :-)
Cheers/Don
Greetings,
Tracy O'Brien has a cute little sharpie that uses a very low
power outboard(2 to 7 hp) in a well. It has a little cabin, and
he claims that building is straight forward. It has a very
classic look. It might be one for you to consider. Here is a
link to the design:
http://www.boatdesigns.com/cgi-bin/store/web_store.cgi?page=kayleigh.html&&cart_id=1761376_23703
Jim G
Tracy O'Brien has a cute little sharpie that uses a very low
power outboard(2 to 7 hp) in a well. It has a little cabin, and
he claims that building is straight forward. It has a very
classic look. It might be one for you to consider. Here is a
link to the design:
http://www.boatdesigns.com/cgi-bin/store/web_store.cgi?page=kayleigh.html&&cart_id=1761376_23703
Jim G
I should note that we initially tested our step-version sneakeasy with an
old tiller-steered 5 Hp. I recall we saw about 9 knots, and I suppose we
were planing. With a couple of people, the sneakeasy only draws an inch or
two, so it doesn't really rise up to plane, it just generally goes faster
and faster as you add power.
Even with a heavier load, for instance the current 25 Hp, 20 gallons of
gas, etc., you still don't draw more than 3 or 4 inches, and you can't feel
any transition to plane at all. (If it's floating on top of the water,
isn't it technically planing at rest? ;-)
Anyway, our sneakeasy is built with 1/4" sides (another story), so it may
be a little lighter than average. I think a sneakeasy built of light
material like occume might be a suitable for the purposes - just think
about where to park that beast. I couldn't recommend building it lightly,
because surely someone will pop on a big outboard and take it to sea...
Gregg Carlson
At 02:45 PM 4/20/2001 -0000, you wrote:
old tiller-steered 5 Hp. I recall we saw about 9 knots, and I suppose we
were planing. With a couple of people, the sneakeasy only draws an inch or
two, so it doesn't really rise up to plane, it just generally goes faster
and faster as you add power.
Even with a heavier load, for instance the current 25 Hp, 20 gallons of
gas, etc., you still don't draw more than 3 or 4 inches, and you can't feel
any transition to plane at all. (If it's floating on top of the water,
isn't it technically planing at rest? ;-)
Anyway, our sneakeasy is built with 1/4" sides (another story), so it may
be a little lighter than average. I think a sneakeasy built of light
material like occume might be a suitable for the purposes - just think
about where to park that beast. I couldn't recommend building it lightly,
because surely someone will pop on a big outboard and take it to sea...
Gregg Carlson
At 02:45 PM 4/20/2001 -0000, you wrote:
>All of Bolger's square planing powerboats like Sneakeasy, with the01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>exception of the ones with the step bottom (microtrawler and the
>like) are pretty much derived from Hickman's "Viper" design, from
>about 1910 if I remember correctly. Bolger had a version of Viper
>in "30-Odd Boats". Sneakeasy is Viper revised for outboard power and
>more civilized accomodations.
>
>The problem with a 4HP motor is that real planing usually requires
>around 0.025 HP/lb, (160 lb total weight) although you can probably
>push it a little. These boats depend on a high length to beam ratio,
>so just making it shorter isn't a good idea. If you make a boat with
>Sneakeasy proportions too much smaller, the boat might work fine, but
>human beings would be too large and heavy to fit in it. 6M x 1M
>might just work, although with 4 HP, I'd suspect you might be better
>off with an ordinarly flat-bottomed skiff (The Atkins, father and
>son, designed a whole pile of them). This probably wouldn't give you
>the style you're looking for, however.
>
>If I were going to try this, I'd do some model testing. If you can
>find a copy of Weston Farmer's "From My Old Boat Shop", there is a
>very good discussion of testing small powerboat designs with models.
>
>I have been contemplating Thomas Firth Jones's long skinny powerboats
>for years, and someday mau actually build one. The complete plans
>for Puxe are in "Boats to Go" or ("Low Resistance Boats" in the first
>edition). You won't be able to get that bottom shape in sheet
>plywood, although the topsides would be OK; he diagonal-planked the
>bottom, Chesapeake-style. Lapstrake ply or strip-planking might
>work. He actually has a web site now:
>http://www.jonesboats.com/
>although it doesn't mention his powerboats. He has a revised
>version, Puxe II, with an even more complex bottom shape in foam-core
>fiberglass and lapstrake topsides which is really lovely. They both
>need about 10 HP, though.
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
>- no flogging dead horses
>- add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>- stay on topic and punctuate
>- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
>- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
All of Bolger's square planing powerboats like Sneakeasy, with the
exception of the ones with the step bottom (microtrawler and the
like) are pretty much derived from Hickman's "Viper" design, from
about 1910 if I remember correctly. Bolger had a version of Viper
in "30-Odd Boats". Sneakeasy is Viper revised for outboard power and
more civilized accomodations.
The problem with a 4HP motor is that real planing usually requires
around 0.025 HP/lb, (160 lb total weight) although you can probably
push it a little. These boats depend on a high length to beam ratio,
so just making it shorter isn't a good idea. If you make a boat with
Sneakeasy proportions too much smaller, the boat might work fine, but
human beings would be too large and heavy to fit in it. 6M x 1M
might just work, although with 4 HP, I'd suspect you might be better
off with an ordinarly flat-bottomed skiff (The Atkins, father and
son, designed a whole pile of them). This probably wouldn't give you
the style you're looking for, however.
If I were going to try this, I'd do some model testing. If you can
find a copy of Weston Farmer's "From My Old Boat Shop", there is a
very good discussion of testing small powerboat designs with models.
I have been contemplating Thomas Firth Jones's long skinny powerboats
for years, and someday mau actually build one. The complete plans
for Puxe are in "Boats to Go" or ("Low Resistance Boats" in the first
edition). You won't be able to get that bottom shape in sheet
plywood, although the topsides would be OK; he diagonal-planked the
bottom, Chesapeake-style. Lapstrake ply or strip-planking might
work. He actually has a web site now:
http://www.jonesboats.com/
although it doesn't mention his powerboats. He has a revised
version, Puxe II, with an even more complex bottom shape in foam-core
fiberglass and lapstrake topsides which is really lovely. They both
need about 10 HP, though.
exception of the ones with the step bottom (microtrawler and the
like) are pretty much derived from Hickman's "Viper" design, from
about 1910 if I remember correctly. Bolger had a version of Viper
in "30-Odd Boats". Sneakeasy is Viper revised for outboard power and
more civilized accomodations.
The problem with a 4HP motor is that real planing usually requires
around 0.025 HP/lb, (160 lb total weight) although you can probably
push it a little. These boats depend on a high length to beam ratio,
so just making it shorter isn't a good idea. If you make a boat with
Sneakeasy proportions too much smaller, the boat might work fine, but
human beings would be too large and heavy to fit in it. 6M x 1M
might just work, although with 4 HP, I'd suspect you might be better
off with an ordinarly flat-bottomed skiff (The Atkins, father and
son, designed a whole pile of them). This probably wouldn't give you
the style you're looking for, however.
If I were going to try this, I'd do some model testing. If you can
find a copy of Weston Farmer's "From My Old Boat Shop", there is a
very good discussion of testing small powerboat designs with models.
I have been contemplating Thomas Firth Jones's long skinny powerboats
for years, and someday mau actually build one. The complete plans
for Puxe are in "Boats to Go" or ("Low Resistance Boats" in the first
edition). You won't be able to get that bottom shape in sheet
plywood, although the topsides would be OK; he diagonal-planked the
bottom, Chesapeake-style. Lapstrake ply or strip-planking might
work. He actually has a web site now:
http://www.jonesboats.com/
although it doesn't mention his powerboats. He has a revised
version, Puxe II, with an even more complex bottom shape in foam-core
fiberglass and lapstrake topsides which is really lovely. They both
need about 10 HP, though.
The "PUXE" is covered in much more detail in "Boats to Go"**than is
in the SBJ issue. I got my copy from Amazon.com. Jones also has a new
book due out around July.
YIBBB
Bruce
**--Chapter 4, "Long, Narrow Power Boats" pages 107-131
in the SBJ issue. I got my copy from Amazon.com. Jones also has a new
book due out around July.
YIBBB
Bruce
**--Chapter 4, "Long, Narrow Power Boats" pages 107-131
>version of that
> Hmmm, anyone interested in, or willing to, email me a scanned
> article? My SBJ are from that period, but I certainly don'trecognize the
> design from the description.available from Mr
>
> Sounds like an interesting boat. I'd assume that plans are
> TFJ.
>
> Cheers/Carron
And I found the issue of which I speak: a classic SBJ, #26, Aug/Sep
1982, it has Thomas Firth Jones's 22-foot PUXE, deadrise launch; has
Bolger's second cartoon, Modest Marina Cruiser (which appears to
be quite similar to a design that appeared very recently in
Messing About in Boats); and has the lines of the 14' California SEA
MEW. If I had a scanner, I would post it for a short time before the
intellectual property police found me.
Does anyone know who owns the rights to the SBJ? Anyone know? How
does one run down the rights of such a publication?
Back to PUXE ... 22-5 overall, 21-4 waterline, 9.5 inches draft, 1250
lbs. displacement, including 600 lbs. passengers, very little rocker
in the chines. He trimmed with 4 passengers midships, all gear
forward, and recommended a 7.5 to 10 horsepower -- 8 knots with 7
aboard. 10 HP with 2 aboard she did >10 knots. He fabricated a
midship coaming-mounted tiller arm that controlled the outboards
tiller. He stated that he burned 0.4 gph at 10 knots for 25 mpg.
I believe he has a web page.
Phil Lea
Russellville, Arkansas
1982, it has Thomas Firth Jones's 22-foot PUXE, deadrise launch; has
Bolger's second cartoon, Modest Marina Cruiser (which appears to
be quite similar to a design that appeared very recently in
Messing About in Boats); and has the lines of the 14' California SEA
MEW. If I had a scanner, I would post it for a short time before the
intellectual property police found me.
Does anyone know who owns the rights to the SBJ? Anyone know? How
does one run down the rights of such a publication?
Back to PUXE ... 22-5 overall, 21-4 waterline, 9.5 inches draft, 1250
lbs. displacement, including 600 lbs. passengers, very little rocker
in the chines. He trimmed with 4 passengers midships, all gear
forward, and recommended a 7.5 to 10 horsepower -- 8 knots with 7
aboard. 10 HP with 2 aboard she did >10 knots. He fabricated a
midship coaming-mounted tiller arm that controlled the outboards
tiller. He stated that he burned 0.4 gph at 10 knots for 25 mpg.
I believe he has a web page.
Phil Lea
Russellville, Arkansas
--- In bolger@y..., phillip_lea@y... wrote:
> If you are thinking of of Thomas Firth Jone's design from an mid
> 1980's issue, it was the size you speak of, deep vee forward
> transitioning to an almost flat after section, a semi-displacement
> hull that moved on a low horsepower engine. Jone's design had a
> cross-planked bottom to get the vee forward and flat stern
> section. Looked very retro and of course would sip fuel. Mr. Jones
> still designs and has written "Boats that Go" which I believe
> emphasizes his desire for moderate speed with low horsepower. On
the
> future book purchase list.
>
> Phil Lea
>
> --- In bolger@y..., pateson@c... wrote:
> > Speed of those boats has to do with length to width and
> > weight. "Long, narrow boats" Could add tiller extension, either
> > comercial, or homemade, or simple side mounted tiller to cable
> > streering.
> > Saw a similar sized open boat in old Small Boat Journal. I think
> > about 20+' by 4'. It worked great, but their main concern was
> > minimal weight. No wake planing.
> > Pat
In a message dated 04/19/2001 8:<BR46:<BR08 PM
Eastern Daylight ,phillip_lea@...writes:
article? My SBJ are from that period, but I certainly don't recognize the
design from the description.
Sounds like an interesting boat. I'd assume that plans are available from Mr
TFJ.
Cheers/Carron
Eastern Daylight ,phillip_lea@...writes:
> If you are thinking of of Thomas Firth Jone's design from an midHmmm, anyone interested in, or willing to, email me a scanned version of that
> 1980's issue, it was the size you speak of, deep vee forward
> transitioning to an almost flat after section, a semi-displacement
> hull that moved on a low horsepower engine. Jone's design had a
> cross-planked bottom to get the vee forward and flat stern
> section. Looked very retro and of course would sip fuel. Mr. Jones
> still designs and has written "Boats that Go" which I believe
> emphasizes his desire for moderate speed with low horsepower. On the
> future book purchase list.
article? My SBJ are from that period, but I certainly don't recognize the
design from the description.
Sounds like an interesting boat. I'd assume that plans are available from Mr
TFJ.
Cheers/Carron
If you are thinking of of Thomas Firth Jone's design from an mid
1980's issue, it was the size you speak of, deep vee forward
transitioning to an almost flat after section, a semi-displacement
hull that moved on a low horsepower engine. Jone's design had a
cross-planked bottom to get the vee forward and flat stern
section. Looked very retro and of course would sip fuel. Mr. Jones
still designs and has written "Boats that Go" which I believe
emphasizes his desire for moderate speed with low horsepower. On the
future book purchase list.
Phil Lea
1980's issue, it was the size you speak of, deep vee forward
transitioning to an almost flat after section, a semi-displacement
hull that moved on a low horsepower engine. Jone's design had a
cross-planked bottom to get the vee forward and flat stern
section. Looked very retro and of course would sip fuel. Mr. Jones
still designs and has written "Boats that Go" which I believe
emphasizes his desire for moderate speed with low horsepower. On the
future book purchase list.
Phil Lea
--- In bolger@y..., pateson@c... wrote:
> Speed of those boats has to do with length to width and
> weight. "Long, narrow boats" Could add tiller extension, either
> comercial, or homemade, or simple side mounted tiller to cable
> streering.
> Saw a similar sized open boat in old Small Boat Journal. I think
> about 20+' by 4'. It worked great, but their main concern was
> minimal weight. No wake planing.
> Pat
--- In bolger@y..., StepHydro@a... wrote:
have a folding sneakeasy?
> Anyone ever thought of that one? My brother was talking aboutwanting a boat
> that matched the character of his old outboard engines. It wouldneed to be a
> boat that was usable on as little as 4 hp, and tiller steered. He iscontrol, so
> wondering if a 6m X 1m sized Sneakeasy would still be functional.
>
> The cockpit would have to be far enough rearward to allow tiller
> the long foredeck could remain in the same proportions. However, allthe
> weight would be farther toward the rear than with Bolger's design.It might
> not matter a bit with this sort of hull, aside from sitting a bitbow- high
> at rest and loaded.If we can have a folding schooner, why can't we
>
> Cheers/Carron
have a folding sneakeasy?
In a message dated 04/19/2001 3:<BR52:<BR02 PM
Eastern Daylight ,pateson@...writes:> 1/8 or even 1/16 fordeck
This is really my brother's project, and I am just inquiring for him, since
he doesn't do computers :-)
He was thinking about doped cotton decking afore, with maybe a for'd cockpit
with luaun ply surround.
I have a bunch of SBJ, but don't remember the one you mentioned. Do you have
the issue?
Cheers/Don
Eastern Daylight ,pateson@...writes:> 1/8 or even 1/16 fordeck
> with big Airplane Style "No Step" sign on deck.Pat,
> Do it. Let us know how it comes out.
> Saw a similar sized open boat in old Small Boat Journal. I think
> about 20+' by 4'. It worked great, but their main concern was
> minimal weight. No wake planing.
This is really my brother's project, and I am just inquiring for him, since
he doesn't do computers :-)
He was thinking about doped cotton decking afore, with maybe a for'd cockpit
with luaun ply surround.
I have a bunch of SBJ, but don't remember the one you mentioned. Do you have
the issue?
Cheers/Don
Speed of those boats has to do with length to width and
weight. "Long, narrow boats" Could add tiller extension, either
comercial, or homemade, or simple side mounted tiller to cable
streering. Would move you far enough forward for correct ballance,
but starting, shifting, (does motor have F/R or just swivel 360?)
Could put on a side streering wheel with rope arouond motor and be
able to spin motor right around from cockpit, at slow speed. Speed
control might be a problem. Nice rear deck to crawl back there would
probably do the trick. Probably gonna use all 4 ponnies at full
gallup when running anyway. Just might have to not look so cool when
getting into close quarters. (Better than smashing into dock or
somebody's $50,000 boat.)
Should be cheap and easy to build. Might build as open boat first,
then experiment with "Cockpit" and decking.
Total weight will also be a big concern. 1/8 or even 1/16 fordeck
with big Airplane Style "No Step" sign on deck.
Do it. Let us know how it comes out.
Saw a similar sized open boat in old Small Boat Journal. I think
about 20+' by 4'. It worked great, but their main concern was
minimal weight. No wake planing.
Pat
weight. "Long, narrow boats" Could add tiller extension, either
comercial, or homemade, or simple side mounted tiller to cable
streering. Would move you far enough forward for correct ballance,
but starting, shifting, (does motor have F/R or just swivel 360?)
Could put on a side streering wheel with rope arouond motor and be
able to spin motor right around from cockpit, at slow speed. Speed
control might be a problem. Nice rear deck to crawl back there would
probably do the trick. Probably gonna use all 4 ponnies at full
gallup when running anyway. Just might have to not look so cool when
getting into close quarters. (Better than smashing into dock or
somebody's $50,000 boat.)
Should be cheap and easy to build. Might build as open boat first,
then experiment with "Cockpit" and decking.
Total weight will also be a big concern. 1/8 or even 1/16 fordeck
with big Airplane Style "No Step" sign on deck.
Do it. Let us know how it comes out.
Saw a similar sized open boat in old Small Boat Journal. I think
about 20+' by 4'. It worked great, but their main concern was
minimal weight. No wake planing.
Pat
--- In bolger@e..., StepHydro@a... wrote:
> Anyone ever thought of that one? My brother was talking about
wanting a boat
> that matched the character of his old outboard engines. It would
need to be a
> boat that was usable on as little as 4 hp, and tiller steered. He
is
> wondering if a 6m X 1m sized Sneakeasy would still be functional.
>
> The cockpit would have to be far enough rearward to allow tiller
control, so
> the long foredeck could remain in the same proportions. However,
all the
> weight would be farther toward the rear than with Bolger's design.
It might
> not matter a bit with this sort of hull, aside from sitting a bit
bow- high
> at rest and loaded.
>
> Cheers/Carron
Anyone ever thought of that one? My brother was talking about wanting a boat
that matched the character of his old outboard engines. It would need to be a
boat that was usable on as little as 4 hp, and tiller steered. He is
wondering if a 6m X 1m sized Sneakeasy would still be functional.
The cockpit would have to be far enough rearward to allow tiller control, so
the long foredeck could remain in the same proportions. However, all the
weight would be farther toward the rear than with Bolger's design. It might
not matter a bit with this sort of hull, aside from sitting a bit bow- high
at rest and loaded.
Cheers/Carron
that matched the character of his old outboard engines. It would need to be a
boat that was usable on as little as 4 hp, and tiller steered. He is
wondering if a 6m X 1m sized Sneakeasy would still be functional.
The cockpit would have to be far enough rearward to allow tiller control, so
the long foredeck could remain in the same proportions. However, all the
weight would be farther toward the rear than with Bolger's design. It might
not matter a bit with this sort of hull, aside from sitting a bit bow- high
at rest and loaded.
Cheers/Carron