Re: [bolger] Anhinga
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 6:53 PM, nonews35 <nonews35@...> wrote:
The Anhinga is a remarkable design in that it is a spare, simple,
'big' boat. I think it might make sense if what you want is a very
easily achieved (quick build) trailerable 'oar power auxillary' camp
cruiser.
>The Sandy Bottoms is the only Anhinga built that I have heard about.
>
>
> Have any Ahingas been built except the Sandy Bottoms one? Is the hull the same as BirdWatcher of is it slab sided? I'm looking to go with something like that or maybe a Martha Jane.
>
> Also, I like the idea of a lateen rig also like Zephyr so you can tow the boat to the nearby launch ramp fully rigged it the mast is short enough. Any ideas? I think you could make the mast 11' long and still be OK most places. The Zephyr mast is only 9' the Martha Janes is a bit too high.
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
The Anhinga is a remarkable design in that it is a spare, simple,
'big' boat. I think it might make sense if what you want is a very
easily achieved (quick build) trailerable 'oar power auxillary' camp
cruiser.
Martha Jane is so easy to raise and lower the mast i wouldnt worry about lowering for the trip. It takes 30 seconds of one persons time to raise
-----Original Message-----
From: nonews35 <nonews35@...>
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:53 pm
Subject: [bolger] Anhinga
-----Original Message-----
From: nonews35 <nonews35@...>
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, Oct 10, 2009 9:53 pm
Subject: [bolger] Anhinga
Have any Ahingas been built except the Sandy Bottoms one? Is the hull the same as BirdWatcher of is it slab sided? I'm looking to go with something like that or maybe a Martha Jane.
Also, I like the idea of a lateen rig also like Zephyr so you can tow the boat to the nearby launch ramp fully rigged it the mast is short enough. Any ideas? I think you could make the mast 11' long and still be OK most places. The Zephyr mast is only 9' the Martha Janes is a bit too high.
Cheers,
Jeff
Also, I like the idea of a lateen rig also like Zephyr so you can tow the boat to the nearby launch ramp fully rigged it the mast is short enough. Any ideas? I think you could make the mast 11' long and still be OK most places. The Zephyr mast is only 9' the Martha Janes is a bit too high.
Cheers,
Jeff
Have any Ahingas been built except the Sandy Bottoms one? Is the hull the same as BirdWatcher of is it slab sided? I'm looking to go with something like that or maybe a Martha Jane.
Also, I like the idea of a lateen rig also like Zephyr so you can tow the boat to the nearby launch ramp fully rigged it the mast is short enough. Any ideas? I think you could make the mast 11' long and still be OK most places. The Zephyr mast is only 9' the Martha Janes is a bit too high.
Cheers,
Jeff
Also, I like the idea of a lateen rig also like Zephyr so you can tow the boat to the nearby launch ramp fully rigged it the mast is short enough. Any ideas? I think you could make the mast 11' long and still be OK most places. The Zephyr mast is only 9' the Martha Janes is a bit too high.
Cheers,
Jeff
By the way, my "I don't care" comment was before I re-read the whole
file. Since then, I think he was a pretty careful experimenter
having a fair amount of fun, and like any barnstormer his rusults
don't apply to modern commercial aviation, but they are legitimate in
their place.
"With water ballast the stern can be viewed as kind of cut away
already. When upright the part of the boat that is the water filled
ballast is not there in a way."
I had a rant on this presumption in my earlier response but I wasn't
sure of my ground so I dumped it. One thing, there isn't any water-
ballast in the back of the boat. It's all under seats/cockpit, so
aft of center but not all the way back where the draft is most
attypical. There is a drain back there so some water might get in.
I think this conception of ballast may flow from Bolger's comments in
the Eeek! chapter, where he mentions the rational for the daft,
draft, aft.
The part I wanted to rant about was Bolger's ideas about water
ballast not counting unless it is raised above water. Or your
neutral bouyancy point. Seems to me it could have ceratin affects on
pitching. Lateral stability I am still noodling...
Another concern about the depth aft is what it might do to a motor
position in a well. It creates a higher fence to get around with a
longshaft, and more draft to nock a prop off. Of course a well isn't
the only option, but it would be consistant with the look, and the
absence of a whole lot else going on back there.
Looking at how it's all laid out, it might be possible to drive it
with a Yulloh not oars, close in the oar port, raise the cockpit sole
and have it self draining, and move it forward a little and have a
wider cockpit, though that would affect the berth badly, depending on
arrangements.
file. Since then, I think he was a pretty careful experimenter
having a fair amount of fun, and like any barnstormer his rusults
don't apply to modern commercial aviation, but they are legitimate in
their place.
"With water ballast the stern can be viewed as kind of cut away
already. When upright the part of the boat that is the water filled
ballast is not there in a way."
I had a rant on this presumption in my earlier response but I wasn't
sure of my ground so I dumped it. One thing, there isn't any water-
ballast in the back of the boat. It's all under seats/cockpit, so
aft of center but not all the way back where the draft is most
attypical. There is a drain back there so some water might get in.
I think this conception of ballast may flow from Bolger's comments in
the Eeek! chapter, where he mentions the rational for the daft,
draft, aft.
The part I wanted to rant about was Bolger's ideas about water
ballast not counting unless it is raised above water. Or your
neutral bouyancy point. Seems to me it could have ceratin affects on
pitching. Lateral stability I am still noodling...
Another concern about the depth aft is what it might do to a motor
position in a well. It creates a higher fence to get around with a
longshaft, and more draft to nock a prop off. Of course a well isn't
the only option, but it would be consistant with the look, and the
absence of a whole lot else going on back there.
Looking at how it's all laid out, it might be possible to drive it
with a Yulloh not oars, close in the oar port, raise the cockpit sole
and have it self draining, and move it forward a little and have a
wider cockpit, though that would affect the berth badly, depending on
arrangements.
I'm sorry for the delay in getting this out. A couple of thoughts on
these points.
With water ballast the stern can be viewed as kind of cut away
already. When upright the part of the boat that is the water filled
ballast is not there in a way. The hull skin fairs the outside water
flow and the mass of the inside water contributes to momentum, but
this part of the boat is not contributing to floating the hull - is
neutrally bouyant. To resist inversion flotation needs to be high in
the hull, and the stern compartment and under-seat ventilation
passages need to be absolutely flood-proof bouyant to float the
weight of water that may be in the cockpit.
As for form stability, at least when upright, when there is weight
in the stern and the stern is sunk down, how about what PCB
described for the double-ended tippy Light Dory Type V? "It is
possible to step out of one of these boats over the bow, as at a
crowded float. The boat feels terribly tender when the stern cocks
up high, but actually has more reserve stability in that attitude
than in normal trim;.." (Small Boats, p15) Anhinga may behave
similarly when the stern is pressed down - in smoother waters at
least, and with tolerable cockpit free surface effect.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
these points.
With water ballast the stern can be viewed as kind of cut away
already. When upright the part of the boat that is the water filled
ballast is not there in a way. The hull skin fairs the outside water
flow and the mass of the inside water contributes to momentum, but
this part of the boat is not contributing to floating the hull - is
neutrally bouyant. To resist inversion flotation needs to be high in
the hull, and the stern compartment and under-seat ventilation
passages need to be absolutely flood-proof bouyant to float the
weight of water that may be in the cockpit.
As for form stability, at least when upright, when there is weight
in the stern and the stern is sunk down, how about what PCB
described for the double-ended tippy Light Dory Type V? "It is
possible to step out of one of these boats over the bow, as at a
crowded float. The boat feels terribly tender when the stern cocks
up high, but actually has more reserve stability in that attitude
than in normal trim;.." (Small Boats, p15) Anhinga may behave
similarly when the stern is pressed down - in smoother waters at
least, and with tolerable cockpit free surface effect.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>gives
> I don't really care that some guy got knocked over in Anhinga.
> Really the only weird part of the design is the low stearn that
> a little push over when she heels, but i can't see that as toorise
> serious. Anyway, that part could be trimed away. and se could
> at both ends. The rest is just a ballast beam issue, and really
> doesn't do much damage to the design. Now whether the boat can be
> sufficiently stable with water ballas is another mater, but can be
> sorted out in the usual way.
>
Graeme,
I don't expect I will be capsizing Bufflehead very soon. The weather is
getting colder here (US Pacific Northwest) and the water is always cold,
about 50*F, 10*C. Before I test it I would need to finish making the
cockpit lockers and aft hatch more waterproof with seals and strong hold
downs. I would also like to try out some removeable sponsons I've had in
mind for quite awhile. If I got the sponsons built I would probably want to
try them right away, but right now I am taken with another boat project and
have Bufflehead on the back burner. I think that once it was over 90*,
without sponsons, the cockpit would flood pretty quickly. I would hope the
350 lbs of water ballast would at least be enough to hold it on it's side,
and then that crew on the daggerboard would be able to right it. I think
the sponsons, which basically take the place of side decks that a lot of
sailboats have, would allow it to float on it's side without flooding the
cockpit. In my mental scenario I think part of the problem is that as the
boat goes over, crew in the cockpit might be thrown to the lee/down side,
making stability worse. If it floated on it's side ok, one would need to
still climb to the high side, hang on to a line as it came upright, and try
to clamber back in quickly so as to not wind up hanging off the outside of
the boat. I think a knockdown like this would probably never happen, but I
would just have more peace of mind if I knew ahead of time what to expect.
Speaking of Dovekie, Phil writes: "In the test boat, no positive buoyancy
was installed outside of the structural foam. In capsizing trials, once the
mast was released she was easily rolled upright and bailed out, in smooth
water; I don't think I'd want to count on doing it in a seaway; a
production boat would have some added buoyancy, though probably less than
the plans show. It would be easy to add enough ballast and buoyancy to make
her self-righting (though probably not self-bailing) but it would increase
the trailer weight correspondingly and does not seem to me necessary." The
Folding Schooner, p. 143 Has anyone heard of a Dovekie capsize and swamping?
It seems like with over 160 built it must have happened.
In the test it sounds like some crew weight was used to right it once the
mast was released. I would imagine that it held quite a bit of water if it
would have been hard to keep upright and bail in a seaway. With my
self-bailing cockpit, if it came upright with a lot of water in it, it would
be more unstable with the water up higher. I could see leaving the oarports
open to quickly bail it down to that level, and the rest would go down the
Mirage drive well which is 6"x 14" and can be quickly opened. So I think
sponsons to prevent much water entering the cockpit would be good. Being
24" above the water they shouldn't interfere with sailing at normal angles
of heel.
If there is anyone in my area who wants to help me capsize her, I'lll give
it a try. All you need is a good wet or dry suit. I haven't been able to
get friends here to do it as noone has a wet suit. I would do it in a few
feet of water with the boat anchored to a bridle from the bow and stern and
pull it over with the mast.
Gary L.
Port Angeles, WA, USA
I don't expect I will be capsizing Bufflehead very soon. The weather is
getting colder here (US Pacific Northwest) and the water is always cold,
about 50*F, 10*C. Before I test it I would need to finish making the
cockpit lockers and aft hatch more waterproof with seals and strong hold
downs. I would also like to try out some removeable sponsons I've had in
mind for quite awhile. If I got the sponsons built I would probably want to
try them right away, but right now I am taken with another boat project and
have Bufflehead on the back burner. I think that once it was over 90*,
without sponsons, the cockpit would flood pretty quickly. I would hope the
350 lbs of water ballast would at least be enough to hold it on it's side,
and then that crew on the daggerboard would be able to right it. I think
the sponsons, which basically take the place of side decks that a lot of
sailboats have, would allow it to float on it's side without flooding the
cockpit. In my mental scenario I think part of the problem is that as the
boat goes over, crew in the cockpit might be thrown to the lee/down side,
making stability worse. If it floated on it's side ok, one would need to
still climb to the high side, hang on to a line as it came upright, and try
to clamber back in quickly so as to not wind up hanging off the outside of
the boat. I think a knockdown like this would probably never happen, but I
would just have more peace of mind if I knew ahead of time what to expect.
Speaking of Dovekie, Phil writes: "In the test boat, no positive buoyancy
was installed outside of the structural foam. In capsizing trials, once the
mast was released she was easily rolled upright and bailed out, in smooth
water; I don't think I'd want to count on doing it in a seaway; a
production boat would have some added buoyancy, though probably less than
the plans show. It would be easy to add enough ballast and buoyancy to make
her self-righting (though probably not self-bailing) but it would increase
the trailer weight correspondingly and does not seem to me necessary." The
Folding Schooner, p. 143 Has anyone heard of a Dovekie capsize and swamping?
It seems like with over 160 built it must have happened.
In the test it sounds like some crew weight was used to right it once the
mast was released. I would imagine that it held quite a bit of water if it
would have been hard to keep upright and bail in a seaway. With my
self-bailing cockpit, if it came upright with a lot of water in it, it would
be more unstable with the water up higher. I could see leaving the oarports
open to quickly bail it down to that level, and the rest would go down the
Mirage drive well which is 6"x 14" and can be quickly opened. So I think
sponsons to prevent much water entering the cockpit would be good. Being
24" above the water they shouldn't interfere with sailing at normal angles
of heel.
If there is anyone in my area who wants to help me capsize her, I'lll give
it a try. All you need is a good wet or dry suit. I haven't been able to
get friends here to do it as noone has a wet suit. I would do it in a few
feet of water with the boat anchored to a bridle from the bow and stern and
pull it over with the mast.
Gary L.
Port Angeles, WA, USA
----- Original Message -----
From: "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
> There's Gary Lepak's Bufflehead. Gary said he was partly influenced by
> Anhinga, and has been happy with the fairly similar Bufflehead in use.
> The water ballasting Gary built-in is fairly similar to that of
> Anhinga. A pull-over to test righting of Bufflehead could be
> indicative. Gary L, any chance before your next summer?
>
> cheers
> Graeme
or
there or not. Seems unlikely water ballast was pretty cutitng edge
at the time.
photos, plans redrawn and distributed, mag article, and WB.
> > wanted to experiment with.No he did have that, I don't know recall whether there were changes
>
> Thought so. Did he leave out the water ballast too?
there or not. Seems unlikely water ballast was pretty cutitng edge
at the time.
>For a non-net age, he was a great comunicator... news letters,
>
> > At one time there seem to have been 3-4 others who had plans and
> >were on the verge of building and were put off by Sandy Bottom's
> >well documented and distributed failings. Is that really a
> >direction we need to go again?
>
> I gained a strong impression of that happenstance in the archive.
photos, plans redrawn and distributed, mag article, and WB.
> No, not up the creek without a paddle again; go the other way. IntoIndeed.
> the rivers like Anhinga's namesake, then... then... then off to
> shallow sea most economically.
>
> Graeme
>
>The first time, bearing up, he caught the boom and dragged her over
>
> Hey, that's great news! Did he say why she ever rolled over. Did it
> flood internally, and where did the water gain entry?
like a laser.
Second time, sheating in after getting out of irons in very modest
wind.
Water came in the rowing ports, and then through the vents into the
cabin, the whole hull filled up. But agian these were essentially
during the sea trials stage.
>You while shipped or just letting them rotate back? I think I would
>
> >I always felt a better system would use deck plates, it would
> >probalby be fairly easy to configure these for the oars.
>
> Yep, that looked workable to me. I wondered though: could the oars
> trail tucked in along the sides behind?
do without that if I could have a waterproof closure in exchange.
>something,
> >He did quite a bit of work on the design. All this is between 16
> >and 20 years ago so the intitial trials must have led to
> >and the subsequent history is...I was thinking more that after season one he had sailed her modestly,
>
> On hold?
capsized here twice, and become pretty demoralized. Later his
impressions seem to have improved, felt she was self-righting, and
was still noodling over how to cure the lee helm. He went so far as
to get her published in both WB and MOIB. OK, now we are up to 1990,
what happened since. We know everyone else who had plans seems to
have sobered up but, where is SB? Come to think of it that may have
been mentioned...
>Beyond that
>
> >she sailed "respectably". In fact, beyond that is Birdwatcher andSorry about that, no I meant he moved on to the glass tourist type
> >all that that entails.
>
> Motors? PCB has his preferences but like Hunt is no zealot; except
> perhaps for when it comes to motor wells.
boats, that still capsize but don't flood.
>.
>He discussed a plank, but even a kid on the WW steps was OK for quite
> How much live ballast? On a plank?;)
a bit of stiffening.
>You bet, PCB in 2001.
> Is that PCB's "respectably"? That'll do me.
>
> Cheers
> Graeme
>
Thanks Graeme,
I haven't been tragically discouraged, building Fat Eeek! was a really
small project, and would have been smaller still had I done it in good
weather, rather than the middle of winter. Once I put a project like
that aside for any good reason,I tend to walk past, remember what it is
I am waiting for, and keep on walking. If I did it in '01, then
daughter 2 came about 2 months later... Yup, my conscience is
clear! :0) Actually given my greater than God weight, and the greater
beam of FA, it's possible I won't need ballast.
I'm hanging on to the A plans, thanks for the offer. I think this is a
pivotal design, and a great story. It seems to be right on the cusp of
when the designs went square, and weird (and still good). Perfectly
encapsulates the tension between pretty boats and the utilitarian ones;
the easily driven and knocked down ones vs. the stand-up or don't care
if they are knocked down ones. Now, if you have some original plans
for Pointer... Still I'm not sure.
On the design of A, all the fiddlers increase the sail area.
Birdwatcher, which gets mentioend in the same breath has a 1" thick
sole, which might be a good place to start with A also. Even with the
water ballast, or maybe someone should build it as drawn...
ESC (Escape :0)), as I'm sure you know is 8600 pounds displacement. I
don't seem to have any data on the ballast, but my memory tells me it
is 900 pounds. I don't know where I get that number, and it seems
rather small. On the other hand, the AS 29 seems to call out 2000
pounds, it's about 7300 displacement, can have 482 sail area vs. the
ESC at 210 sail area, though a larger displacement. ESC displaces 3.6
times the water but carries only 70 square feet more sail than A.
Stability problem solved!
One thing that bothered me about 30 OB is that the picture of Pointer
is in the Skilly chapter, not the EEK one, Skilly and Pointer don't
have anything in comon, while I suspect these long lean under-canvased
boats are well understood.
If she was 25% boat, 25% ballast, 50% load, would that be normal? I
have occasionally wondered what all that stuff would be...
Jumping back to A for a moment, I have often wondered if she were
anchored from the rear, whether her tail would reduce the amount of tap
tap one would hear at anchor. Of course, both ends can get involved,
still, might be worth investigation.
By the way, the plans cost in '86 was 25 dollars.
I haven't been tragically discouraged, building Fat Eeek! was a really
small project, and would have been smaller still had I done it in good
weather, rather than the middle of winter. Once I put a project like
that aside for any good reason,I tend to walk past, remember what it is
I am waiting for, and keep on walking. If I did it in '01, then
daughter 2 came about 2 months later... Yup, my conscience is
clear! :0) Actually given my greater than God weight, and the greater
beam of FA, it's possible I won't need ballast.
I'm hanging on to the A plans, thanks for the offer. I think this is a
pivotal design, and a great story. It seems to be right on the cusp of
when the designs went square, and weird (and still good). Perfectly
encapsulates the tension between pretty boats and the utilitarian ones;
the easily driven and knocked down ones vs. the stand-up or don't care
if they are knocked down ones. Now, if you have some original plans
for Pointer... Still I'm not sure.
On the design of A, all the fiddlers increase the sail area.
Birdwatcher, which gets mentioend in the same breath has a 1" thick
sole, which might be a good place to start with A also. Even with the
water ballast, or maybe someone should build it as drawn...
ESC (Escape :0)), as I'm sure you know is 8600 pounds displacement. I
don't seem to have any data on the ballast, but my memory tells me it
is 900 pounds. I don't know where I get that number, and it seems
rather small. On the other hand, the AS 29 seems to call out 2000
pounds, it's about 7300 displacement, can have 482 sail area vs. the
ESC at 210 sail area, though a larger displacement. ESC displaces 3.6
times the water but carries only 70 square feet more sail than A.
Stability problem solved!
One thing that bothered me about 30 OB is that the picture of Pointer
is in the Skilly chapter, not the EEK one, Skilly and Pointer don't
have anything in comon, while I suspect these long lean under-canvased
boats are well understood.
If she was 25% boat, 25% ballast, 50% load, would that be normal? I
have occasionally wondered what all that stuff would be...
Jumping back to A for a moment, I have often wondered if she were
anchored from the rear, whether her tail would reduce the amount of tap
tap one would hear at anchor. Of course, both ends can get involved,
still, might be worth investigation.
By the way, the plans cost in '86 was 25 dollars.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...>
wrote:
Anhinga, and has been happy with the fairly similar Bufflehead in use.
The water ballasting Gary built-in is fairly similar to that of
Anhinga. A pull-over to test righting of Bufflehead could be
indicative. Gary L, any chance before your next summer?
cheers
Graeme
wrote:
> At one time there seem to have been 3-4 others who had plans andThere's Gary Lepak's Bufflehead. Gary said he was partly influenced by
>were on the verge of building and were put off by Sandy Bottom's
>well documented and distributed failings. Is that really a direction
>we need to go again?
Anhinga, and has been happy with the fairly similar Bufflehead in use.
The water ballasting Gary built-in is fairly similar to that of
Anhinga. A pull-over to test righting of Bufflehead could be
indicative. Gary L, any chance before your next summer?
cheers
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
No, not up the creek without a paddle again; go the other way. Into
the rivers like Anhinga's namesake, then... then... then off to
shallow sea most economically.
Graeme
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>Thought so. Did he leave out the water ballast too?
> I have that stuff, but I really wonder what it adds to the
> discussion, Sandy Bottoms was not an Anhinga, many changes were
> made. The guy who built her went into the project with the desire
> to modify her to incorporate features he liked in other boats, or
> wanted to experiment with.
>He ran into a lot of difficulties, possibly some of his own making,Ooops. You are right, it wasn't an Anhinga.
>extreme lee helm as a result of his sail changes and poor lateral
>trim due to weight changes in the rig. he used a solid spar from
>what I can determine, he recut one, while the boat calls for a
>hollow spar to keep weight low.
>All his writings seem to indicate very careful work, he madeIn the photo she seems well enough built.
>several models including one full size out of card. Like a lot of
>us he seems to have enjoyed creating design problems, and then
>sorting them out.
> At one time there seem to have been 3-4 others who had plans andI gained a strong impression of that happenstance in the archive.
>were on the verge of building and were put off by Sandy Bottom's
>well documented and distributed failings. Is that really a
>direction we need to go again?
No, not up the creek without a paddle again; go the other way. Into
the rivers like Anhinga's namesake, then... then... then off to
shallow sea most economically.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
flood internally, and where did the water gain entry?
trail tucked in along the sides behind?
perhaps for when it comes to motor wells.
Sail carrying? Wouldn't take much for hull speed.
How much live ballast? On a plank?;)
Is that PCB's "respectably"? That'll do me.
Cheers
Graeme
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>Hey, that's great news! Did he say why she ever rolled over. Did it
> In the correspondence that came with my plans, the builder of
>Sandy Bottoms mentions satifactory trials of capsize recovery after
>sealing the gun ports. He had little trouble getting the boat back
>up and took on less water. This even though the ports where
>imperfectly sealed at the time of writing.
flood internally, and where did the water gain entry?
>I always felt a better system would use deck plates, it wouldYep, that looked workable to me. I wondered though: could the oars
>probalby be fairly easy to configure these for the oars.
trail tucked in along the sides behind?
>He did quite a bit of work on the design. All this is between 16On hold?
>and 20 years ago so the intitial trials must have led to something,
>and the subsequent history is...
> There was a spread in MAIB, unfortunately my copy does not give aMotors? PCB has his preferences but like Hunt is no zealot; except
> date. Bolger mentioned only two disadvantages to the design,
>in '01: 1) Hard to mount a motor, which is a pro or con depending
>on temperment, though it can probably be done in a well. Or dual
>electrics. 2) Inability to carry sail, which is the ballast issue
>again. Not as though the boat can't carry some more weight And SB
>was noticeably stiffened with a little live ballast. Beyond that
>she sailed "respectably". In fact, beyond that is Birdwatcher and
>all that that entails.
perhaps for when it comes to motor wells.
Sail carrying? Wouldn't take much for hull speed.
How much live ballast? On a plank?;)
Is that PCB's "respectably"? That'll do me.
Cheers
Graeme
> A question. I keep running across a reference to a letter ormessage
> giving the details of Anhinga's capsize, but couldn't find it inthe
> archives. Can anyone point me to exactly where it is? Thanks.message
>
> Gary
>
> A question. I keep running across a reference to a letter or
> giving the details of Anhinga's capsize, but couldn't find it inthe
> archives. Can anyone point me to exactly where it is? Thanks.I have that stuff, but I really wonder what it adds to the
>
> Gary
>
discussion, Sandy Bottoms was not an Anhinga, many changes were
made. The guy who built her went into the project with the desire to
modify her to incorporate features he liked in other boats, or wanted
to experiment with. He ran into a lot of difficulties, possibly some
of his own making, and others that may have been the fault of the
design. He had extreme lee helm as a result of his sail changes and
poor lateral trim due to weight changes in the rig. he used a solid
spar from what I can determine, he recut one, while the boat calls
for a hollow spar to keep weight low.
All his writings seem to indicate very careful work, he made several
models including one full size out of card. Like a lot of us he seems
to have enjoyed creating design problems, and then sorting them out.
At one time there seem to have been 3-4 others who had plans and were
on the verge of building and were put off by Sandy Bottom's well
documented and distributed failings. Is that really a direction we
need to go again?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
and welcome back :-) It's a pity about those discs as a bit of steel
ballast ought to do to try the concept in the absence of lead. What
is it? about 8/11ths the density of lead? and closer than that
suggests when in water. Near enough to try.
75lbs lead x 8/11 = ~54.
54/8 gives approximate water weight displaced by that weight of
steel.
(75 - 1/11x75) - (54 - 1/8x54) = an effective 20lbs difference only,
and the righting arm decrease is small too.
I hope your interest picks up again, so you launch. A while ago Mark
showed me some pics of fat Eeek! on saw horses - must have been in
your backyard. Try it with bricks in or something...in a pool... and
some extra low weight for crew - no need to sail, though that would
be good - see what the stability feels like by pressing down the
gunnel, maybe measure with a spring balance. I hope you do.
OTH if your not interested... I'm too far away... to collect fat
Eeek!... but would make you an offer for the Anhinga plans & etc. If
you're open to it, that is.
I'd like to see Anhinga working, and like yourself, then the Seagoer.
Seagoer would be a real goer coastwise around northern Australia,
and Coral Sea,I feel. How much wood in that one do you reckon? Mr
Coral Sea and Great Barrier Reef himself, Alan Lucas, moved to a
self designed and built plywood, skipjack bottom, daggerboard, type
for the shoal draft needed to follow his calling. He'd been old-
school deep keeler forever til recently. Did PCB tell you what he
thought ESC's ballast was?
later
Graeme
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>I have the plans that were traded over this board, there is quite aHi,
>bit included in the way of correspondence there....
>... My original plan was to built fat Eeek, and if that went well
>then Anhinga, and if that went well the Seagoing one. I did ask
>Bolger about doing up that design
and welcome back :-) It's a pity about those discs as a bit of steel
ballast ought to do to try the concept in the absence of lead. What
is it? about 8/11ths the density of lead? and closer than that
suggests when in water. Near enough to try.
75lbs lead x 8/11 = ~54.
54/8 gives approximate water weight displaced by that weight of
steel.
(75 - 1/11x75) - (54 - 1/8x54) = an effective 20lbs difference only,
and the righting arm decrease is small too.
I hope your interest picks up again, so you launch. A while ago Mark
showed me some pics of fat Eeek! on saw horses - must have been in
your backyard. Try it with bricks in or something...in a pool... and
some extra low weight for crew - no need to sail, though that would
be good - see what the stability feels like by pressing down the
gunnel, maybe measure with a spring balance. I hope you do.
OTH if your not interested... I'm too far away... to collect fat
Eeek!... but would make you an offer for the Anhinga plans & etc. If
you're open to it, that is.
I'd like to see Anhinga working, and like yourself, then the Seagoer.
Seagoer would be a real goer coastwise around northern Australia,
and Coral Sea,I feel. How much wood in that one do you reckon? Mr
Coral Sea and Great Barrier Reef himself, Alan Lucas, moved to a
self designed and built plywood, skipjack bottom, daggerboard, type
for the shoal draft needed to follow his calling. He'd been old-
school deep keeler forever til recently. Did PCB tell you what he
thought ESC's ballast was?
later
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gbship" <gbship@...> wrote:
there are various letters referred to in the Anhinga archive. Mostly
they are reporting correspondence with PCB concerning Anhinga.
However I felt quite a few references were to either the letters
referred to in John's letter, or PCB's letter to Mark. Both copied
to my earlier post at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/51207?l=1
and again copied here below.
I think the letter to John from Dave, the "Sandy Bottoms" builder,
was passed along with other correspondence to Thomas when Thomas
bought Anhinga plans from John. There were also enclosed pictures
of "Sandy Bottoms".
It's terrific that Thomas has just posted that he still has that
letter and much included with it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/51276?l=1
That's Bolger museum material.
Graeme
_____________________________________________________________________
_______
Message #29380
WeBookPeople@... john_fader
In a message dated 7/7/03 6:58:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bolger@yahoogroups.comwrites:
and not well solved by original builder. I bought the plans in 86 or
so, intending to build her, even had PCB do me a dipping lug.. .big
one :-). Before I got started, I found that another fellow
(Dave...???, called the boat something like Sandy Shoes) contacted
me or the other way round. He expressed some doubts and told me some
of Phil's. I decided to wait.
After Dave??? finished and launched the boat, he wrote me a long
letter with pix of building, sailing, etc. He built her nearly as
needs be to the plans.
Now, I traded my plans to someone on this list a few years back;
included all my files, so I can't tell you exactly what was wrong,
but she was at least: lee-helmed, far tippier than planned, and even
after the lee helm was fixed, would hang in stays quite easily.
Dave??? was not at all pleased with the boat. I'd be very
disinclined to recommend this design.
Cheers/The Fader
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message #29390
"Mark A." <marka@...> marka97203
Re: [bolger] Anhinga, was Re: Economy seagoing cruiser, deficiencies
Hand written note from PCB:
Philip C. Bolger
29 Ferry Street Gloucester, MA 01930 U.S.A.
March 6, 1991
Dear Mark,
I've been arguing that the Birdwatcher design is a superior solution
to the same wish list, but it's a fact that I find the Anhinga
design attractive and would like to see one built as designed. The
Eeek! canoe is not much of a boat, but its behavior suggested that a
bigger version would be respectable. At worst, it may need more
positive buoyancy. Placing this will make it much less roomy, so she
shouldn't have it if she can get by without. I don't see how the
modified Anhinga could have got bottom up unless the stern
compartment flooded some way. Reference is to Sandy Shoes, converted
to a yawl. Mark
> A question. I keep running across a reference to a letter ormessage
> giving the details of Anhinga's capsize, but couldn't find it inthe
> archives. Can anyone point me to exactly where it is? Thanks.Gary,
>
there are various letters referred to in the Anhinga archive. Mostly
they are reporting correspondence with PCB concerning Anhinga.
However I felt quite a few references were to either the letters
referred to in John's letter, or PCB's letter to Mark. Both copied
to my earlier post at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/51207?l=1
and again copied here below.
I think the letter to John from Dave, the "Sandy Bottoms" builder,
was passed along with other correspondence to Thomas when Thomas
bought Anhinga plans from John. There were also enclosed pictures
of "Sandy Bottoms".
It's terrific that Thomas has just posted that he still has that
letter and much included with it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/51276?l=1
That's Bolger museum material.
Graeme
_____________________________________________________________________
_______
Message #29380
WeBookPeople@... john_fader
In a message dated 7/7/03 6:58:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bolger@yahoogroups.comwrites:
> ....(SNIP) > weren't there some second thoughts by PCB regardingDavid, yes there were, substantial ones, plus problems experienced
>this design (I believe something about the narrow stern and flat
>run aft)?
and not well solved by original builder. I bought the plans in 86 or
so, intending to build her, even had PCB do me a dipping lug.. .big
one :-). Before I got started, I found that another fellow
(Dave...???, called the boat something like Sandy Shoes) contacted
me or the other way round. He expressed some doubts and told me some
of Phil's. I decided to wait.
After Dave??? finished and launched the boat, he wrote me a long
letter with pix of building, sailing, etc. He built her nearly as
needs be to the plans.
Now, I traded my plans to someone on this list a few years back;
included all my files, so I can't tell you exactly what was wrong,
but she was at least: lee-helmed, far tippier than planned, and even
after the lee helm was fixed, would hang in stays quite easily.
Dave??? was not at all pleased with the boat. I'd be very
disinclined to recommend this design.
Cheers/The Fader
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Message #29390
"Mark A." <marka@...> marka97203
Re: [bolger] Anhinga, was Re: Economy seagoing cruiser, deficiencies
Hand written note from PCB:
Philip C. Bolger
29 Ferry Street Gloucester, MA 01930 U.S.A.
March 6, 1991
Dear Mark,
I've been arguing that the Birdwatcher design is a superior solution
to the same wish list, but it's a fact that I find the Anhinga
design attractive and would like to see one built as designed. The
Eeek! canoe is not much of a boat, but its behavior suggested that a
bigger version would be respectable. At worst, it may need more
positive buoyancy. Placing this will make it much less roomy, so she
shouldn't have it if she can get by without. I don't see how the
modified Anhinga could have got bottom up unless the stern
compartment flooded some way. Reference is to Sandy Shoes, converted
to a yawl. Mark
In the correspondence that came with my plans, the builder of Sandy
Bottoms mentions satifactory trials of capsize recovery after sealing
the gun ports. He had little trouble getting the boat back up and
took on less water. This even though the ports where imperfectly
sealed at the time of writing. I always felt a better system would
use deck plates, it would probalby be fairly easy to configure these
for the oars. He did quite a bit of work on the design. All this is
between 16 and 20 years ago so the intitial trials must have led to
something, and the subsequent history is...
Some have mentioned the ladder steps, these are simply another use
for the oar ports.
I think that a really clever feature on this boat is the
daggerboard. Forgetting about leeboards for the moment, some do like
daggerboards. Most don't like the idea of grounding and ripping the
bottom of the boat out, or crashing, etc... Here we have a side
mounted board that doesn't flop around, and if torn off does minimal
damage ot the boat.
There was a spread in MAIB, unfortunately my copy does not give a
date.
Bolger mentioned only two disadvantages to the design, in '01: 1)
Hard to mount a motor, which is a pro or con depending on temperment,
though it can probably be done in a well. Or dual electrics. 2)
Inability to carry sail, which is the ballast issue again. Not as
though the boat can't carry some more weight And SB was noticeably
stiffened with a little live ballast. Beyond that she
sailed "respectably". In fact, beyond that is Birdwatcher and all
that that entails.
Bottoms mentions satifactory trials of capsize recovery after sealing
the gun ports. He had little trouble getting the boat back up and
took on less water. This even though the ports where imperfectly
sealed at the time of writing. I always felt a better system would
use deck plates, it would probalby be fairly easy to configure these
for the oars. He did quite a bit of work on the design. All this is
between 16 and 20 years ago so the intitial trials must have led to
something, and the subsequent history is...
Some have mentioned the ladder steps, these are simply another use
for the oar ports.
I think that a really clever feature on this boat is the
daggerboard. Forgetting about leeboards for the moment, some do like
daggerboards. Most don't like the idea of grounding and ripping the
bottom of the boat out, or crashing, etc... Here we have a side
mounted board that doesn't flop around, and if torn off does minimal
damage ot the boat.
There was a spread in MAIB, unfortunately my copy does not give a
date.
Bolger mentioned only two disadvantages to the design, in '01: 1)
Hard to mount a motor, which is a pro or con depending on temperment,
though it can probably be done in a well. Or dual electrics. 2)
Inability to carry sail, which is the ballast issue again. Not as
though the boat can't carry some more weight And SB was noticeably
stiffened with a little live ballast. Beyond that she
sailed "respectably". In fact, beyond that is Birdwatcher and all
that that entails.
> I guess the point I am trying to make is why bother with attempting toActually, I was looking at Anhinga as a slight improvement in some ways
> modify designs that Bolger has declared obsolete? I think Gary
> Blankenship already has a superior design to Anhinga in his Frolic 2
> and Catfish Beachcruiser is an improved design over Cynthia J.
>
to Frolic2. It's a bit longer and higher with the same beam, so fair
amount roomier and with the security of water ballast. Anhinga would be
better comparable to Michalak's Caprice, which is 18 inches or so long,
a foot wider and has a bit more headroom. Being multi-chines, I expect
it would be faster and more comfortable in rough water, has better
accommodations, and -- with it's mast in a tabernacle -- might even be
faster to set up. Both have water ballast. Anhinga would row better, I
think be a bit lighter, and almost certainly be easier to build.
I wish someone would come to an Everglades Challenge with a
Birdwatcher, a Camper, or a Dovekie. I think a lot of people haven't
learned Matt Layden's lesson about how much energy and comfort is
preserved by being in the boat instead of exposed. I haven't gone with
a Bird or Camper because I'm concered even with the slot open, our
light-wind, hot summers might make the cabin too warm.
BTW, I didn't make it to the lake over the weekend to test the carbon
fiber mast; may get to that tomorrow afternoon when there's supposed to
be at least a moderate breeze. . .
A question. I keep running across a reference to a letter or message
giving the details of Anhinga's capsize, but couldn't find it in the
archives. Can anyone point me to exactly where it is? Thanks.
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
designer support if the changes are significant.
I think trying to decide if Anihinga is "outright obsolete" or
"technically obsolete" is kind of splitting hairs.
Probably the best thing is to fax him and ask about the plans and tell
him you are interested in building one, and so are several others on
this group.
Then share his response with the rest of us.
He has mentioned on more than one occasion as to why he feels the
Birdwatcher is superior to some of his other efforts such as Dovkie
which is also in the sailing sharpie canoe genera and much admired by
many folks.
I think if you inquired he would be very enthusiastic about Camper
#640 as well. With it's two sculling stations and quickly struck
sailing rig, it is probably more efficient than Birdwatcher when it
comes to motorless travel.
He claims in the write-up (Or more likely Susanne claims.)
"Two people taking turns rowing can keep her going all day at three
knots and cover twenty to thirty miles without extraordinary
conditioning or exhaustion.... The lowered mast acts as a ridgpole for
a tent, and the boat can be rowed with the tent spread; that is, on a
day of rain - as has been known on Puget Sound - the cruise can be
contimued on schedule, smugly dry, but well-ventilated fore and aft to
evaporate perspiration"
This dessign uses no ballast except for the crew and it's camping
equipment and stores.
Nels
wrote:
>Of course the plans buyer can do whatever he likes. But don't expect
> When did the designer declare the designs to be outright obsolete?
> Nearly every builder fiddles with a Bolger design. He has just
> recently fiddled with Cynthia J himself.
>
> Graeme
>
designer support if the changes are significant.
I think trying to decide if Anihinga is "outright obsolete" or
"technically obsolete" is kind of splitting hairs.
Probably the best thing is to fax him and ask about the plans and tell
him you are interested in building one, and so are several others on
this group.
Then share his response with the rest of us.
He has mentioned on more than one occasion as to why he feels the
Birdwatcher is superior to some of his other efforts such as Dovkie
which is also in the sailing sharpie canoe genera and much admired by
many folks.
I think if you inquired he would be very enthusiastic about Camper
#640 as well. With it's two sculling stations and quickly struck
sailing rig, it is probably more efficient than Birdwatcher when it
comes to motorless travel.
He claims in the write-up (Or more likely Susanne claims.)
"Two people taking turns rowing can keep her going all day at three
knots and cover twenty to thirty miles without extraordinary
conditioning or exhaustion.... The lowered mast acts as a ridgpole for
a tent, and the boat can be rowed with the tent spread; that is, on a
day of rain - as has been known on Puget Sound - the cruise can be
contimued on schedule, smugly dry, but well-ventilated fore and aft to
evaporate perspiration"
This dessign uses no ballast except for the crew and it's camping
equipment and stores.
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
#11038.
The way I came across the MJ capsising issue in the archives was
serendipitous really. The recent Micro keel discussion triggered a
memory of Don Elliot posting here that he had done one of his
booklets on the Storm Petrel design. A quick skim through some of
the Storm Petrel threads on the Smallboats group and the branches
from those threads turned up Elliot's # 5459 references to the
bolgergroup threads concerning Martha Jane. I could have just used
the improved search function to look for <martha Jane stability
dynamics>, or <Leinweber Martha Jane Caprice>, which I later did.
There is a lot of information based on experience, and discussion of
the MJ stability issues in the relevant bolgergroup threads.
Tangential threads that arise also turn up, now and again,
information pertinent to the original topic. Of course much of what
is in the archive is is an interesting read in its own right. Mining
the shared range of experiences, and the reported personal
interactions with PCB, do much to fill out the many gaps in
knowledge of the designer and his works, and their building and use.
Many of the experienced folks from a few years ago no longer post
here, so can't be queried directly, but the archives does allow a
manner of access to their combined wisdom.
For Martha Jane capsising see Smallboats group message threads at:
#176, #4608, & #5459.
Also see bolgergroup messages threads at: #2239, #3443, #3451,
#3473, #3482, #3502, & #3499.
Referencing is a pain. I've wished for a cross-referenced list of
all the snippets of information that are around and about to do with
Bolgerdom. It would be especially good for reference when one of the
major recurring topics such as "seas-of-peas" comes up. I've shyed
away from such trouble myself, and now the search function may work
well enough to render it superfluous at least for yahoogroup content.
cautious these days when tempted to stray from the tried and true..
It is interesting that the Anhinga plans were offered at a higher
price than those of Birdwatcher. I believe the Birdwatcher plans are
more detailed too. Is this a Bolger price-point discriminator for
the seriously adventurous?
The plan drawings I've seen of Camper don't make her out to be too
attractive. This opposite of course is a major point sustaining
interest in Anhinga. I would dearly like to see photos of Camper.
I think almost rule #1 of boats is that they must attract the gaze.
Has PCB&F done a non-sectioned profile sail plan view drawing of
Camper with the full Bolger treatment?
Graeme
> > a regular poster here at the time, based hisJane
> > decision to build a Michalak designed Caprice on these Martha
> > events.See Chuck's bolgergroup messages around the time of his post here at
> >
> Take your word for it Graeme.
>
> You really must be culling the deep dark depths of the archives:-)
#11038.
The way I came across the MJ capsising issue in the archives was
serendipitous really. The recent Micro keel discussion triggered a
memory of Don Elliot posting here that he had done one of his
booklets on the Storm Petrel design. A quick skim through some of
the Storm Petrel threads on the Smallboats group and the branches
from those threads turned up Elliot's # 5459 references to the
bolgergroup threads concerning Martha Jane. I could have just used
the improved search function to look for <martha Jane stability
dynamics>, or <Leinweber Martha Jane Caprice>, which I later did.
There is a lot of information based on experience, and discussion of
the MJ stability issues in the relevant bolgergroup threads.
Tangential threads that arise also turn up, now and again,
information pertinent to the original topic. Of course much of what
is in the archive is is an interesting read in its own right. Mining
the shared range of experiences, and the reported personal
interactions with PCB, do much to fill out the many gaps in
knowledge of the designer and his works, and their building and use.
Many of the experienced folks from a few years ago no longer post
here, so can't be queried directly, but the archives does allow a
manner of access to their combined wisdom.
For Martha Jane capsising see Smallboats group message threads at:
#176, #4608, & #5459.
Also see bolgergroup messages threads at: #2239, #3443, #3451,
#3473, #3482, #3502, & #3499.
Referencing is a pain. I've wished for a cross-referenced list of
all the snippets of information that are around and about to do with
Bolgerdom. It would be especially good for reference when one of the
major recurring topics such as "seas-of-peas" comes up. I've shyed
away from such trouble myself, and now the search function may work
well enough to render it superfluous at least for yahoogroup content.
>Faxing
> Perhaps if you are really interested in Anhinga you might try
> the master himself and see what he suggests about whether it isPut up or shut up? :) Yes, I probably should, but I'm much more
> worthwhile or not to look at the plans and any possible upgrades.
>
cautious these days when tempted to stray from the tried and true..
It is interesting that the Anhinga plans were offered at a higher
price than those of Birdwatcher. I believe the Birdwatcher plans are
more detailed too. Is this a Bolger price-point discriminator for
the seriously adventurous?
> Re: The Everglades challenge perhaps Camper deserves a look aswell.
> Not sure how it performs under oar power as compared to Anhingathough.
>concern
> PCB&F updated the plans awhile back and Mike O'Brien wrote a review
> that is available someplace in the files. They addressed every
> that some member had regarding the original plan and added someother
> items as well including an anit-slap bow. I am curious how thatboom
> vang strut would work on some other of the boats that use a gaffrig.
>commissioned
> A fellow named Mike Wagenbach from the Puget Sound area
> the design but no evidence how it worked out for him. Anothercouple
> in CA were building one as well but I lost contact when my computertype.
> died a couple years back.
>
> Then along came BW2 which seemed to renew the interest in that
The plan drawings I've seen of Camper don't make her out to be too
attractive. This opposite of course is a major point sustaining
interest in Anhinga. I would dearly like to see photos of Camper.
I think almost rule #1 of boats is that they must attract the gaze.
Has PCB&F done a non-sectioned profile sail plan view drawing of
Camper with the full Bolger treatment?
Graeme
>I don't think Peero (Pirogue12 #637) and Eeek! are related otherI was around when John wrote to PCB. I've probably got more Peero hours
>than by virtue of their similar size, and possibly many Eeek!
>enquiries by people not suited for this boat leading to PCB
>designing Peero for canoeist extraordinaire John Harris. Might it
>perhaps have been intended as an introductory level plan in his CLC
>catalogue? PCB wrote me: "Eeek! #407 plans are not available as this
>was purely a "test article"; we enclose the plans of a much superior
>boat, #637, with text." The "test" went well, but of the two which
>boat design (and until recent years people did purchase #407 plans)
>would you recommend for an inexperienced builder out to paddle-sail
>a sharpie canoe? The answer is partly in the Pirate Racer #542 write-
>up having to do with construction method; also lead casting, and
>paddling.
than anyone. Jon wanted two cartoppable, sailing boats that could be taken
just about anywhere. (Beam is 24" so two can cartop side by side). He wrote
to PCB to ask if Eeeek plans were available and would that be suitable.
PCB sent back the Peero sketch and John built a couple. That's about it.
You could lop off a few inches in front and give them a scow-raked bow, but
basically it's a super-simple cartoppable sharpie sailboat. About the only
quirks are that it's hard to self-rescue due to the rocker, and there's a
tendency to sit too far back so you drag the transom a little. A pointed
stern would only add length, so PCB squared it. But it's got much in common
with a sailing canoe.
In Chesapeake Bay chop they do pound, but everything does. It's a great
little sailboat and a fair paddling boat. It's no kayak, but then, most
kayaks don't sail so great, and it is much more comfortable than a kayak
for long periods. I got to the point I could stand in it, but that's a
little tricky, and it's not a "stand up and pole" type bayou pirogue.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
When did the designer declare the designs to be outright obsolete?
Nearly every builder fiddles with a Bolger design. He has just
recently fiddled with Cynthia J himself.
Graeme
Nearly every builder fiddles with a Bolger design. He has just
recently fiddled with Cynthia J himself.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
>... I guess the point I am trying to make is why bother with
attempting to
> modify designs that Bolger has declared obsolete? I think Gary
> Blankenship already has a superior design to Anhinga in his Frolic
2
> and Catfish Beachcruiser is an improved design over Cynthia J.
>
>http://www.instantboats.com/catfish.htm
>
> Between Bolger and Michalak and John Welsford,Matt Layden and Paul
> Fisher and a few others there are a lot of great designs, without
> having to re-design an old one the designer really doesn't want to
> have anything more to do with any longer.
>
> Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
Why, it wouldn't be Bolger without it. :-)
I don't think Peero (Pirogue12 #637) and Eeek! are related other
than by virtue of their similar size, and possibly many Eeek!
enquiries by people not suited for this boat leading to PCB
designing Peero for canoeist extraordinaire John Harris. Might it
perhaps have been intended as an introductory level plan in his CLC
catalogue? PCB wrote me: "Eeek! #407 plans are not available as this
was purely a "test article"; we enclose the plans of a much superior
boat, #637, with text." The "test" went well, but of the two which
boat design (and until recent years people did purchase #407 plans)
would you recommend for an inexperienced builder out to paddle-sail
a sharpie canoe? The answer is partly in the Pirate Racer #542 write-
up having to do with construction method; also lead casting, and
paddling.
quite correct as much sail remains for various reasons, and now
graceful wind technologies may stave off the worst of global
warming. By the same token, Bolger has, notably, over 13 years
repeatedly described Anhinga with the very same words:"aesthetically
attractive", "attractive", "workable", "technically obsolete". Never
plain "obsolete". The plans are available. He has not withdrawn them
(at least as of 2004). To use the same language for so long when
responding to enquiries indicates a negative verdict has not been
reached and the type development has merely been stalled. PCB has
taken on other projects in his advancing age.
Bolger has an un-named water flow theory, a significant part of
which that is often referred to involves the phenomena found at the
forward chine of a sharpie hull under way. "Seas of Peas" refers to
a visualisation technique, Bolger presented to some, for visualising
the flow of water around a hull. The technique makes it easier to
grasp the various sharpie bow phenomena, such as pressure
differential causing cross chine flow causing power wasting
vortices, that Bolger's theory covers. Other designers may have
their own visualisation technique, such as John Welsford's
visualisation of " it as a surface made of a frictionless but very
heavy non elastic and non compressible surface." (yahoogroups
dwforum message #5864:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dwforum/message/5864). Bolger's
visualisation seems easier to me.
Bolger has had his theory for a long, long time. He was only 11 yrs
of age when Ray Hunt designed the first International 110, and may
have got his insight into the behaviour of water molecules somewhat
intact from Hunt (BWAOM Ch 31). In the current MAIB article
featuring Cynthia J, Bolger seems to allude to the forward chine of
Cynthia J being derived from the theory. The flat profile of the
forward chine would make it appear not to be so unless only
considering the boat well heeled and sailing more on her middle with
the bow high out of the water. At any rate, while suggesting a few
modifications he does not say the design is obsolete. Cynthia J #289
postdates Gloucester Yawl #261 where Bolger first claimed his
sharpie work was based on his own flow theory. Archaeopteryx #202,
Otter #231, Blackgauntlet #267, of course Pointer, all possess
congruent chine curve in plan and profile view as derived from
Bolger flow theory, and all pre-date Cynthia J #289. Anhinga #484
comes in well after the theory is fully developed, and is in
complete accord with the implications of the theory. Remarkably,
Anhinga possesses the curvature to the forward chine dictated by the
theory.
{ Remarkably, Anhinga possesses the forward chine curvature as per
theory. }
Bolger flow theory. As Bolger says of the type in the write-up of
Canard (BWAOM p111): It's not an especially good sailboat
shape... ...the discrepancy between the plan-view curve of the
sides and the profile view of the bottom generates turbulence under
the chines that make them slow and unsteady-steering whenever they
dig the forefoot into solid water." An earlier try at the "Instant
Boat" pre-assembled flat-pack type plan, Otter, doesn't have that
problem. It has instead a problem with "instant".
Graeme
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, craig o'donnell <dadadata@> wrote:Ahh, as ever with things Bolger, debate, controversy, contention.
> >
>Bolger went back to the square stern on the Peero and kept plenty
>of rocker. He considered this an improvement on Eeek.
> >
> I would agree Craig
Why, it wouldn't be Bolger without it. :-)
I don't think Peero (Pirogue12 #637) and Eeek! are related other
than by virtue of their similar size, and possibly many Eeek!
enquiries by people not suited for this boat leading to PCB
designing Peero for canoeist extraordinaire John Harris. Might it
perhaps have been intended as an introductory level plan in his CLC
catalogue? PCB wrote me: "Eeek! #407 plans are not available as this
was purely a "test article"; we enclose the plans of a much superior
boat, #637, with text." The "test" went well, but of the two which
boat design (and until recent years people did purchase #407 plans)
would you recommend for an inexperienced builder out to paddle-sail
a sharpie canoe? The answer is partly in the Pirate Racer #542 write-
up having to do with construction method; also lead casting, and
paddling.
> I have to wonder if Anhinga and maybe Cynthia J were drawn prior toObsolete = sail replaced by power. However, *technically* that's not
> Bolger developing his "seas of peas hull theory for sharpies" and
>that is what makes the designs obsolete in his mind? This theory,
>which has the bottom profile match the swell and curvature of the
>sides...
quite correct as much sail remains for various reasons, and now
graceful wind technologies may stave off the worst of global
warming. By the same token, Bolger has, notably, over 13 years
repeatedly described Anhinga with the very same words:"aesthetically
attractive", "attractive", "workable", "technically obsolete". Never
plain "obsolete". The plans are available. He has not withdrawn them
(at least as of 2004). To use the same language for so long when
responding to enquiries indicates a negative verdict has not been
reached and the type development has merely been stalled. PCB has
taken on other projects in his advancing age.
Bolger has an un-named water flow theory, a significant part of
which that is often referred to involves the phenomena found at the
forward chine of a sharpie hull under way. "Seas of Peas" refers to
a visualisation technique, Bolger presented to some, for visualising
the flow of water around a hull. The technique makes it easier to
grasp the various sharpie bow phenomena, such as pressure
differential causing cross chine flow causing power wasting
vortices, that Bolger's theory covers. Other designers may have
their own visualisation technique, such as John Welsford's
visualisation of " it as a surface made of a frictionless but very
heavy non elastic and non compressible surface." (yahoogroups
dwforum message #5864:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dwforum/message/5864). Bolger's
visualisation seems easier to me.
Bolger has had his theory for a long, long time. He was only 11 yrs
of age when Ray Hunt designed the first International 110, and may
have got his insight into the behaviour of water molecules somewhat
intact from Hunt (BWAOM Ch 31). In the current MAIB article
featuring Cynthia J, Bolger seems to allude to the forward chine of
Cynthia J being derived from the theory. The flat profile of the
forward chine would make it appear not to be so unless only
considering the boat well heeled and sailing more on her middle with
the bow high out of the water. At any rate, while suggesting a few
modifications he does not say the design is obsolete. Cynthia J #289
postdates Gloucester Yawl #261 where Bolger first claimed his
sharpie work was based on his own flow theory. Archaeopteryx #202,
Otter #231, Blackgauntlet #267, of course Pointer, all possess
congruent chine curve in plan and profile view as derived from
Bolger flow theory, and all pre-date Cynthia J #289. Anhinga #484
comes in well after the theory is fully developed, and is in
complete accord with the implications of the theory. Remarkably,
Anhinga possesses the curvature to the forward chine dictated by the
theory.
{ Remarkably, Anhinga possesses the forward chine curvature as per
theory. }
>... seems to be common of his small "Instant boat"around a
> series as built, tested successfully and still marketed by Dynamite
> Payson.
>
> These small boat designs have never been surpassed in my view for
> simplicity of building and good performance. Perhaps exemplified by
> the Teal design which is two straight pieces of plywood bend
> flared bulkhead and joined at both ends. However this results inboth
> ends rising above the water, which is fine in smaller designs butonce
> you get to anything longer than the Birdwatcher size, you have alot
> of overhang, which makes it difficult to get into and out of fromthe
> bow (as when beaching) and difficult to hang a motor from."Instant boats" mostly do not conform to an application of the
>
Bolger flow theory. As Bolger says of the type in the write-up of
Canard (BWAOM p111): It's not an especially good sailboat
shape... ...the discrepancy between the plan-view curve of the
sides and the profile view of the bottom generates turbulence under
the chines that make them slow and unsteady-steering whenever they
dig the forefoot into solid water." An earlier try at the "Instant
Boat" pre-assembled flat-pack type plan, Otter, doesn't have that
problem. It has instead a problem with "instant".
Graeme
I have the plans that were traded over this board, there is quite a
bit included in the way of correspondence there. I built Fat Eeek,
though I never got back about it because nobody seemed interested in
the concept, including me. I got it all epoxy/glass sheathed and
couldn't find 70 pounds of free ballast, so never launched it. It's
been sitting out back in fully floatable condition for a long while
now.
I haven't been back in about 24000 messages, but oddly, tonight I was
thinking of sailrite sewing machines, Mike Stocks' Martha jane, and
the fact I stupidly threw out some F150 integrated discs, that would
have been perfect for ballast... and look what all you guys are
discussing over here!
My original plan was to built fat Eeek, and if that went well then
Anhinga, and if that went well the Seagoing one. I did ask Bolger
about doing up that design and while he suggested some other design,
he was willing to do it for a few hundred. Not sure what it would
cost today.
Fat Eeek! is Anhinga in proportions, and Eeek! is Seagoing in
proportion, so that kinda bothered me test wise, those the scale
factors are totally different anyway.
I don't really care that some guy got knocked over in Anhinga.
Really the only weird part of the design is the low stearn that gives
a little push over when she heels, but i can't see that as too
serious. Anyway, that part could be trimed away. and se could rise
at both ends. The rest is just a ballast beam issue, and really
doesn't do much damage to the design. Now whether the boat can be
sufficiently stable with water ballas is another mater, but can be
sorted out in the usual way.
bit included in the way of correspondence there. I built Fat Eeek,
though I never got back about it because nobody seemed interested in
the concept, including me. I got it all epoxy/glass sheathed and
couldn't find 70 pounds of free ballast, so never launched it. It's
been sitting out back in fully floatable condition for a long while
now.
I haven't been back in about 24000 messages, but oddly, tonight I was
thinking of sailrite sewing machines, Mike Stocks' Martha jane, and
the fact I stupidly threw out some F150 integrated discs, that would
have been perfect for ballast... and look what all you guys are
discussing over here!
My original plan was to built fat Eeek, and if that went well then
Anhinga, and if that went well the Seagoing one. I did ask Bolger
about doing up that design and while he suggested some other design,
he was willing to do it for a few hundred. Not sure what it would
cost today.
Fat Eeek! is Anhinga in proportions, and Eeek! is Seagoing in
proportion, so that kinda bothered me test wise, those the scale
factors are totally different anyway.
I don't really care that some guy got knocked over in Anhinga.
Really the only weird part of the design is the low stearn that gives
a little push over when she heels, but i can't see that as too
serious. Anyway, that part could be trimed away. and se could rise
at both ends. The rest is just a ballast beam issue, and really
doesn't do much damage to the design. Now whether the boat can be
sufficiently stable with water ballas is another mater, but can be
sorted out in the usual way.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
You really must be culling the deep dark depths of the archives:-)
Perhaps if you are really interested in Anhinga you might try Faxing
the master himself and see what he suggests about whether it is
worthwhile or not to look at the plans and any possible upgrades.
Re: The Everglades challenge perhaps Camper deserves a look as well.
Not sure how it performs under oar power as compared to Anhinga though.
PCB&F updated the plans awhile back and Mike O'Brien wrote a review
that is available someplace in the files. They addressed every concern
that some member had regarding the original plan and added some other
items as well including an anit-slap bow. I am curious how that boom
vang strut would work on some other of the boats that use a gaff rig.
A fellow named Mike Wagenbach from the Puget Sound area commissioned
the design but no evidence how it worked out for him. Another couple
in CA were building one as well but I lost contact when my computer
died a couple years back.
Then along came BW2 which seemed to renew the interest in that type.
Nels
wrote:
>Take your word for it Graeme.
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka@> wrote:
>
> > That boat had to have been Anhinga.
>
> No. I doubt the "Sandy Bottoms" story enters into it at all. It was
> most probably the Martha Jane waterballast design that PCB refers to
> in the Whalewatcher chapter. Check through the archives here, and in
> the Don Elliot Smallboats group (now defunct?) for the years 1999-
> 2002. There is quite a bit of bewilderment and anger arising from
> some earlier 'built to plan' Martha Janes turning turtle. Chuck
> Leinweber of Duckworks, a regular poster here at the time, based his
> decision to build a Michalak designed Caprice on these Martha Jane
> events.
>
You really must be culling the deep dark depths of the archives:-)
Perhaps if you are really interested in Anhinga you might try Faxing
the master himself and see what he suggests about whether it is
worthwhile or not to look at the plans and any possible upgrades.
Re: The Everglades challenge perhaps Camper deserves a look as well.
Not sure how it performs under oar power as compared to Anhinga though.
PCB&F updated the plans awhile back and Mike O'Brien wrote a review
that is available someplace in the files. They addressed every concern
that some member had regarding the original plan and added some other
items as well including an anit-slap bow. I am curious how that boom
vang strut would work on some other of the boats that use a gaff rig.
A fellow named Mike Wagenbach from the Puget Sound area commissioned
the design but no evidence how it worked out for him. Another couple
in CA were building one as well but I lost contact when my computer
died a couple years back.
Then along came BW2 which seemed to renew the interest in that type.
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
most probably the Martha Jane waterballast design that PCB refers to
in the Whalewatcher chapter. Check through the archives here, and in
the Don Elliot Smallboats group (now defunct?) for the years 1999-
2002. There is quite a bit of bewilderment and anger arising from
some earlier 'built to plan' Martha Janes turning turtle. Chuck
Leinweber of Duckworks, a regular poster here at the time, based his
decision to build a Michalak designed Caprice on these Martha Jane
events.
The CSD 1991 catalogue has MJ as a CSD plan. Whalewatcher is still
listed, for I don't know how long, as just a prototype. By the time
of publication of BWAOM in 1994 the 1991 description of Martha Jane
had changed from quoting Mike O'brien, senior editor 'WoodenBoat'
magazine, saying way back in WB #80, "Built as drawn, Martha Jane
should be...self righting" to PCB saying the high sided hull merely
had a good range of stability. A "good range of stability" - that's
nothing like succintly saying "self righting". A lot of folks must
not have picked up on the implications of the differences in
language used.
When it comes to language, PCB is exceedingly discerning. TF Jones
the boat builder and writer, who in another life is I believe a
professional communicator, in his PCB tribute, wrote of Bolger's
writing: "Bolger's writing seems to flow forth to us as naturally as
conversation, although in fact it is the product of labor, and
Bolger is not an especiallty easy or well organised
conversationalist. ...He uses remarkably few commas in his writing,
but the wording is so carefully thought out and logically arranged
that one never pauses to wonder what he means." If Yahoo allowed I'd
italicise that last phrase: "that one never pauses to wonder what he
means". (Shakespeare's is another well known example of flowing,
highly crafted writing that carries encoded meaning at many
different levels.)
Quietly, in recent years, subsequent to the internet discussion (and
a hot fax?) Martha Jane was revised to self right from a beam ends
knockdown, then given a further revision of the optional large cabin.
As for Anhinga, I've seen no evidence that PCB has ever published
anything related to it other than the Eeek! chapter in 30-Odd Boats.
There he is quite positive of the boat's attributes, and in later
correspondence with various Bolgerados has written that Eeek!
suggested well for the type. In fact it is quite the contrary as in
1991 he addressed the "Sandy Bottoms" issue directly when he
wrote: "I don't see how the modified Anhinga could have got bottom
up unless the stern compartment flooded some way." The carefully
written Martha Jane chapter follows the Whalewatcher chapter in the
1994 BWAOM
So, that boat had to have been Martha Jane l, with crew on high
seating.
Graeme
> That boat had to have been Anhinga.No. I doubt the "Sandy Bottoms" story enters into it at all. It was
most probably the Martha Jane waterballast design that PCB refers to
in the Whalewatcher chapter. Check through the archives here, and in
the Don Elliot Smallboats group (now defunct?) for the years 1999-
2002. There is quite a bit of bewilderment and anger arising from
some earlier 'built to plan' Martha Janes turning turtle. Chuck
Leinweber of Duckworks, a regular poster here at the time, based his
decision to build a Michalak designed Caprice on these Martha Jane
events.
The CSD 1991 catalogue has MJ as a CSD plan. Whalewatcher is still
listed, for I don't know how long, as just a prototype. By the time
of publication of BWAOM in 1994 the 1991 description of Martha Jane
had changed from quoting Mike O'brien, senior editor 'WoodenBoat'
magazine, saying way back in WB #80, "Built as drawn, Martha Jane
should be...self righting" to PCB saying the high sided hull merely
had a good range of stability. A "good range of stability" - that's
nothing like succintly saying "self righting". A lot of folks must
not have picked up on the implications of the differences in
language used.
When it comes to language, PCB is exceedingly discerning. TF Jones
the boat builder and writer, who in another life is I believe a
professional communicator, in his PCB tribute, wrote of Bolger's
writing: "Bolger's writing seems to flow forth to us as naturally as
conversation, although in fact it is the product of labor, and
Bolger is not an especiallty easy or well organised
conversationalist. ...He uses remarkably few commas in his writing,
but the wording is so carefully thought out and logically arranged
that one never pauses to wonder what he means." If Yahoo allowed I'd
italicise that last phrase: "that one never pauses to wonder what he
means". (Shakespeare's is another well known example of flowing,
highly crafted writing that carries encoded meaning at many
different levels.)
Quietly, in recent years, subsequent to the internet discussion (and
a hot fax?) Martha Jane was revised to self right from a beam ends
knockdown, then given a further revision of the optional large cabin.
As for Anhinga, I've seen no evidence that PCB has ever published
anything related to it other than the Eeek! chapter in 30-Odd Boats.
There he is quite positive of the boat's attributes, and in later
correspondence with various Bolgerados has written that Eeek!
suggested well for the type. In fact it is quite the contrary as in
1991 he addressed the "Sandy Bottoms" issue directly when he
wrote: "I don't see how the modified Anhinga could have got bottom
up unless the stern compartment flooded some way." The carefully
written Martha Jane chapter follows the Whalewatcher chapter in the
1994 BWAOM
So, that boat had to have been Martha Jane l, with crew on high
seating.
Graeme
> that when they redesign a boat they seem to always make it moreFor the newest version of Topaz Spyder, ditto.
> off-shore capable as a result.
They have large chunks of foam floatation laminated 'up high' in the
sides, (I know because I am presently working on such). This foam is
clearly intended to help resisting the hull from turning turtle should
she find herself on her side.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
come to larger designs. They lop off the ends. MJ also illustrates
that when they redesign a boat they seem to always make it more
off-shore capable as a result. Unfortunately the "F" part of the
equation often makes it a lot more complicated and therefor they
hardly ever get built. But even BWII and the Chebacco designs
including the raised deck one built by Ben with a self-draining
cockpit, are more seaworthy. I think maybe Susanne - with her
engineering background - has made Phil more aware of a belt and
suspenders type safety margin.
I guess the point I am trying to make is why bother with attempting to
modify designs that Bolger has declared obsolete? I think Gary
Blankenship already has a superior design to Anhinga in his Frolic 2
and Catfish Beachcruiser is an improved design over Cynthia J.
http://www.instantboats.com/catfish.htm
Between Bolger and Michalak and John Welsford,Matt Layden and Paul
Fisher and a few others there are a lot of great designs, without
having to re-design an old one the designer really doesn't want to
have anything more to do with any longer.
Nels
Nels
> I've got about 6 cu. ft foam in my little Windspint hull, but that'sI agree. Martha Jane is a good example though of what PCB&F do when it
> to float the hull and batteries swamped.
> Late additions to Martha Jane included much larger flotation volumes
> than these and steel ballast. This boat's not for the same purpose
> though.
>
come to larger designs. They lop off the ends. MJ also illustrates
that when they redesign a boat they seem to always make it more
off-shore capable as a result. Unfortunately the "F" part of the
equation often makes it a lot more complicated and therefor they
hardly ever get built. But even BWII and the Chebacco designs
including the raised deck one built by Ben with a self-draining
cockpit, are more seaworthy. I think maybe Susanne - with her
engineering background - has made Phil more aware of a belt and
suspenders type safety margin.
I guess the point I am trying to make is why bother with attempting to
modify designs that Bolger has declared obsolete? I think Gary
Blankenship already has a superior design to Anhinga in his Frolic 2
and Catfish Beachcruiser is an improved design over Cynthia J.
http://www.instantboats.com/catfish.htm
Between Bolger and Michalak and John Welsford,Matt Layden and Paul
Fisher and a few others there are a lot of great designs, without
having to re-design an old one the designer really doesn't want to
have anything more to do with any longer.
Nels
Nels
That boat had to have been Anhinga.
Its ballast tank itself is 3" high inside, 6 1/2' long, and in the
middle 4' wide; only about 7 cubic feet. Removed, how much could that
take away from the stability of a boat that size using only 140 sq.
ft. of sail. While why the boat wouldn't right is explained, why
Sandy Bottoms went over in the first place is not. Sure, that could
happen lots of ways.
FWIW
The inside dimensions of the the cabin are 3' 6" by about 40 square
feet. Lining the roof, except for the 2x2 foot hatchway, with 3" of
foam nets about 8 cubic feet or about 500 pounds positive floatation,
adding only 16 pounds extra weight high up.
Filling the stern compartment and, reluctantly, the free flooding
well at the bow, make about 9 1/4 cu. ft., but would be less
effective than in the ends of a boat with more rocker and sheer.
Sponsons along the sheer or lining it inside from stem to stern and
to clear the oar ports: 1 1/2" x 12" x 24' times two come to 6 cu. ft.
Or again, adding an inch thick foam liner to the top half of the
inside cabin walls makes for about 180 pounds buoyancy.
More than enough to right her?
Just right?
Spitin' in the wind?
I've got about 6 cu. ft foam in my little Windspint hull, but that's
to float the hull and batteries swamped.
Late additions to Martha Jane included much larger flotation volumes
than these and steel ballast. This boat's not for the same purpose
though.
Its ballast tank itself is 3" high inside, 6 1/2' long, and in the
middle 4' wide; only about 7 cubic feet. Removed, how much could that
take away from the stability of a boat that size using only 140 sq.
ft. of sail. While why the boat wouldn't right is explained, why
Sandy Bottoms went over in the first place is not. Sure, that could
happen lots of ways.
FWIW
The inside dimensions of the the cabin are 3' 6" by about 40 square
feet. Lining the roof, except for the 2x2 foot hatchway, with 3" of
foam nets about 8 cubic feet or about 500 pounds positive floatation,
adding only 16 pounds extra weight high up.
Filling the stern compartment and, reluctantly, the free flooding
well at the bow, make about 9 1/4 cu. ft., but would be less
effective than in the ends of a boat with more rocker and sheer.
Sponsons along the sheer or lining it inside from stem to stern and
to clear the oar ports: 1 1/2" x 12" x 24' times two come to 6 cu. ft.
Or again, adding an inch thick foam liner to the top half of the
inside cabin walls makes for about 180 pounds buoyancy.
More than enough to right her?
Just right?
Spitin' in the wind?
I've got about 6 cu. ft foam in my little Windspint hull, but that's
to float the hull and batteries swamped.
Late additions to Martha Jane included much larger flotation volumes
than these and steel ballast. This boat's not for the same purpose
though.
On Oct 23, 2006, at 10:39 PM, Nels wrote:
> Water ballast is effective only when there's enough buoyancy to lift
> some of it above the waterline as the boat heels. As long as the
> neutral-buoyancy water is submerged, the stability of the boat is
> whatever it would be if the volumes containing water were removed
> entirely.
> A couple of years ago, one of my water-ballasted designs met
> with an accident that completely flooded her. The wood structure had
> positve buoyancy, so she didn't sink, but she floated bottom-up, with
> the outside of the ballast tanks awash. Some foam high up in the hull
> would have righted her and saved some inconvenience, even danger in
> cold water.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, craig o'donnell <dadadata@...> wrote:
I have to wonder if Anhinga and maybe Cynthia J were drawn prior to
Bolger developing his "seas of peas hull theory for sharpies" and that
is what makes the designs obsolete in his mind?
This theory, which has the bottom profile match the swell and
curvature of the sides seems to be common of his small "Instant boat"
series as built, tested successfully and still marketed by Dynamite
Payson.
These small boat designs have never been surpassed in my view for
simplicity of building and good performance. Perhaps exemplified by
the Teal design which is two straight pieces of plywood bend around a
flared bulkhead and joined at both ends. However this results in both
ends rising above the water, which is fine in smaller designs but once
you get to anything longer than the Birdwatcher size, you have a lot
of overhang, which makes it difficult to get into and out of from the
bow (as when beaching) and difficult to hang a motor from.
So Bolger simply lopped off the overhangs in his larger designs like
Martha Jane, and the AS series. Then instead of using ballast which is
heavy to trailer, or even water ballast which has it limitations he
raised the topsides and added a heavier bottom and ended up with
Birdwatcher and later Whalewatcher. (Which has some water ballast as
well.) These designs prevent water from entering the hull even when
knocked down to 90 degrees. For Martha Jane, he later added higher
cabin sides and sponsons outside the cockpit to help it survive a 90
degree knockdown as well.
Awhile ago I read the series of essays written by Jim Michalak
regarding hull design and it was very educational for me. Michalak is
a great admirer of Bolger's design philosophy and almost all his
designs rely a lot on what he believes to be the best of Bolgers vast
store of knowledge. Many of his designs look pretty crude at first
glance but once you understand the reasoning it kind of makes you a
believer and he has hundreds of his boats being built all over the
world. And not many complaints that I am aware of. The owners love the
performance despite the looks!
I think it is worthwhile to study Bolger's Whalewatcher write-up in
BWAOM. Here are a few excerpts from that write-up for those who don't
have the book. As a search and peck typest this took me awhile.
Forgive the typos.
"The scow shape allows the swell of the forward sides to match the
bottom profile exactly. The idea is that the water pressure will be
the same above and below the chine, with no flow around the chine to
make the eddies that slow down sharp-bowed, flat-bottomed boats in a
chop and make them steer erratically. The penalty, aside from looks,
is booming pounding if waves are met upright.
Water ballast is effective only when there's enough buoyancy to lift
some of it above the waterline as the boat heels. As long as the
neutral-buoyancy water is submerged, the stability of the boat is
whatever it would be if the volumes containing water were removed
entirely. A couple of years ago, one of my water-ballasted designs met
with an accident that completely flooded her. The wood structure had
positve buoyancy, so she didn't sink, but she floated bottom-up, with
the outside of the ballast tanks awash. Some foam high up in the hull
would have righted her and saved some inconvenience, even danger in
cold water.
The boat is supposed to be sailed heeled. The ideal angle is 10 to 12
degrees, withthe weath-side chine close to the waterline. At that
angle, the waterline length, nominally 20 feet when upright, lengthens
out 6 feet or more as the lee overhangs immerse. Exilerating bursts of
speed with started sheets will be frequent. She'll also be a good
drifter since the upright waterline keeps the wetted surface small.
I realize that this design looks peculiar to most people, but it is
the latest step in a 35-year evolution. Whalewatcher is a close
relative - the construction is almost identical - of Pointer, which I
sailed through the 196o's, and every feature of the design has been
tried in practice. As I said to George Anger, the question is whether
he wants what she offers enough to put up with the derision of the
bystanders."
It is also notewarthy that Whalewatchere also was drawn with the
sponsons or pinked stern above where the bottom was tucked in at the
stern, which likely adds to lesson the chance of stern flooding in a
knockdown as well as give high wide seating for the helmsman.
Also here is a link to an article by a favorite boat designer of mine,
Chuck Merrill who incidentely spent considerable amount of time
"re-designing" Bolger's Jesse Cooper after having built a lovely
version to plan. After quite a few years the re-design has never benn
finalized. Worth taking note of I would suggest:-)
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/00/DM2000/columns/slogging/03/dingo.htm
Nels
>I would agree Craig
>
> Bolger went back to the square stern on the Peero and kept plenty of
> rocker. He considered this an improvement on Eeek.
>
I have to wonder if Anhinga and maybe Cynthia J were drawn prior to
Bolger developing his "seas of peas hull theory for sharpies" and that
is what makes the designs obsolete in his mind?
This theory, which has the bottom profile match the swell and
curvature of the sides seems to be common of his small "Instant boat"
series as built, tested successfully and still marketed by Dynamite
Payson.
These small boat designs have never been surpassed in my view for
simplicity of building and good performance. Perhaps exemplified by
the Teal design which is two straight pieces of plywood bend around a
flared bulkhead and joined at both ends. However this results in both
ends rising above the water, which is fine in smaller designs but once
you get to anything longer than the Birdwatcher size, you have a lot
of overhang, which makes it difficult to get into and out of from the
bow (as when beaching) and difficult to hang a motor from.
So Bolger simply lopped off the overhangs in his larger designs like
Martha Jane, and the AS series. Then instead of using ballast which is
heavy to trailer, or even water ballast which has it limitations he
raised the topsides and added a heavier bottom and ended up with
Birdwatcher and later Whalewatcher. (Which has some water ballast as
well.) These designs prevent water from entering the hull even when
knocked down to 90 degrees. For Martha Jane, he later added higher
cabin sides and sponsons outside the cockpit to help it survive a 90
degree knockdown as well.
Awhile ago I read the series of essays written by Jim Michalak
regarding hull design and it was very educational for me. Michalak is
a great admirer of Bolger's design philosophy and almost all his
designs rely a lot on what he believes to be the best of Bolgers vast
store of knowledge. Many of his designs look pretty crude at first
glance but once you understand the reasoning it kind of makes you a
believer and he has hundreds of his boats being built all over the
world. And not many complaints that I am aware of. The owners love the
performance despite the looks!
I think it is worthwhile to study Bolger's Whalewatcher write-up in
BWAOM. Here are a few excerpts from that write-up for those who don't
have the book. As a search and peck typest this took me awhile.
Forgive the typos.
"The scow shape allows the swell of the forward sides to match the
bottom profile exactly. The idea is that the water pressure will be
the same above and below the chine, with no flow around the chine to
make the eddies that slow down sharp-bowed, flat-bottomed boats in a
chop and make them steer erratically. The penalty, aside from looks,
is booming pounding if waves are met upright.
Water ballast is effective only when there's enough buoyancy to lift
some of it above the waterline as the boat heels. As long as the
neutral-buoyancy water is submerged, the stability of the boat is
whatever it would be if the volumes containing water were removed
entirely. A couple of years ago, one of my water-ballasted designs met
with an accident that completely flooded her. The wood structure had
positve buoyancy, so she didn't sink, but she floated bottom-up, with
the outside of the ballast tanks awash. Some foam high up in the hull
would have righted her and saved some inconvenience, even danger in
cold water.
The boat is supposed to be sailed heeled. The ideal angle is 10 to 12
degrees, withthe weath-side chine close to the waterline. At that
angle, the waterline length, nominally 20 feet when upright, lengthens
out 6 feet or more as the lee overhangs immerse. Exilerating bursts of
speed with started sheets will be frequent. She'll also be a good
drifter since the upright waterline keeps the wetted surface small.
I realize that this design looks peculiar to most people, but it is
the latest step in a 35-year evolution. Whalewatcher is a close
relative - the construction is almost identical - of Pointer, which I
sailed through the 196o's, and every feature of the design has been
tried in practice. As I said to George Anger, the question is whether
he wants what she offers enough to put up with the derision of the
bystanders."
It is also notewarthy that Whalewatchere also was drawn with the
sponsons or pinked stern above where the bottom was tucked in at the
stern, which likely adds to lesson the chance of stern flooding in a
knockdown as well as give high wide seating for the helmsman.
Also here is a link to an article by a favorite boat designer of mine,
Chuck Merrill who incidentely spent considerable amount of time
"re-designing" Bolger's Jesse Cooper after having built a lovely
version to plan. After quite a few years the re-design has never benn
finalized. Worth taking note of I would suggest:-)
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/00/DM2000/columns/slogging/03/dingo.htm
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
Ok, with those hints now I see a mast tabernacle and possibly can make
out a boom gallows. I also see the rudder endplate, and the "step
fins" under the oarports. The stern is floating very high indeed.
It maybe that the boat in the photo is sitting on the bottom
amidships. Even so, the stern ballast should have the stern more
submerged, the boat should be tilted back more on the midships pivot
point - it doesn't look as if the bow is being held down. It would
seem she has no stern ballast aboard - I wonder now if that may have
been the capsize cause?
Graeme
>I've added the brief WB caption to Greg's Anhinga Archive.Thanks again Mark.
Ok, with those hints now I see a mast tabernacle and possibly can make
out a boom gallows. I also see the rudder endplate, and the "step
fins" under the oarports. The stern is floating very high indeed.
It maybe that the boat in the photo is sitting on the bottom
amidships. Even so, the stern ballast should have the stern more
submerged, the boat should be tilted back more on the midships pivot
point - it doesn't look as if the bow is being held down. It would
seem she has no stern ballast aboard - I wonder now if that may have
been the capsize cause?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, craig o'donnell <dadadata@...> wrote:
portage, and quicker setup on the water. OTOH Eeek! requires a
ballast pillow of up to 75lbs lead; even if it's in several bars
it's still extra hassle. I read in the archives that PCB later used
water ballast in Eeek!, but I don't see how that would be possible
and also keep the performance. PCB kept Eeek! and wrote she sails
and handles quite well, might even be suitable for along shore, but
has also written paradoxically to some that she is not much of a
boat.
Stern "wings" would improve sheet lead for a dipping lug and
similar. Also a good spot for multiple rod holders when trolling,
and an outboard cutting board and barbeque location.
Graeme
>The Bolger 12ft "Peero" is a further iteration of the Anhinga idea,Peero has the advantage of light weight. Easy paddling, cartop,
>by way of Bolger's test-boat "Eeek!"...
portage, and quicker setup on the water. OTOH Eeek! requires a
ballast pillow of up to 75lbs lead; even if it's in several bars
it's still extra hassle. I read in the archives that PCB later used
water ballast in Eeek!, but I don't see how that would be possible
and also keep the performance. PCB kept Eeek! and wrote she sails
and handles quite well, might even be suitable for along shore, but
has also written paradoxically to some that she is not much of a
boat.
>...You would not be pushing reality to add two "wings" at the sternthis on the >Birdwatcher II.
>of the Anhinga for more buoyancy and places to shove stuff..
>Bugeyes on the Chesapeake, which were sharp-sterned, used a "patent
>stern" addition for more working room. Bolger picked back up on
Stern "wings" would improve sheet lead for a dipping lug and
similar. Also a good spot for multiple rod holders when trolling,
and an outboard cutting board and barbeque location.
Graeme
>On 10/23/06, craig o'donnell wrote:Grazie.
>
>> I get a 404 error.
>
>The Sandy Bottoms, Anhinga photo is in the Anhinga folder of
>BolgerCartoons group which sadly does not allow the use of static URL
>pointers...but Flickr does:
>
>So, I copied the photo over to Flickr...
>
><http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/277358068/>http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/277358068/
>--
>
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hello Bruce
Great pic. Can you tell me about the topaz? How long? Where plans are available? Can it be made with out fiberglass?
Thanks
Dave
Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
Great pic. Can you tell me about the topaz? How long? Where plans are available? Can it be made with out fiberglass?
Thanks
Dave
Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
On 10/23/06, craig o'donnell wrote:
> I get a 404 error.
The Sandy Bottoms, Anhinga photo is in the Anhinga folder of
BolgerCartoons group which sadly does not allow the use of static URL
pointers...but Flickr does:
So, I copied the photo over to Flickr...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/277358068/
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
... is that what happens when boat dog jumps into the
dink and put all four paws (mostlikely sandy or muddy
at the time)where you have to sit to row the thing
back to the big boat????
Blessings all. Krissie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
dink and put all four paws (mostlikely sandy or muddy
at the time)where you have to sit to row the thing
back to the big boat????
Blessings all. Krissie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On 10/23/06, craig o'donnell wrote:
BolgerCartoons group which sadly does not allow the use of static URL
pointers...but Flickr does:
So, I copied the photo over to Flickr...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/277358068/
> I get a 404 error.The Sandy Bottoms, Anhinga photo is in the Anhinga folder of
BolgerCartoons group which sadly does not allow the use of static URL
pointers...but Flickr does:
So, I copied the photo over to Flickr...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/277358068/
In LILY, PCB uses 6 regular D-27's in pairs, in series, to get 24 volts
for more than 8 hrs, without discharging below 25%. I'm not saying, use
6 batteries but you can figure your power requirement. 24 volt Minnkota
draws about 45 amps at full speed but this usage drops considerably with
less power(speed) Sort of like usuing a large high thrust 4 stroke and
throttling back for economy, as in Delaware discussion. Clyde
Kristine Bennett wrote:
for more than 8 hrs, without discharging below 25%. I'm not saying, use
6 batteries but you can figure your power requirement. 24 volt Minnkota
draws about 45 amps at full speed but this usage drops considerably with
less power(speed) Sort of like usuing a large high thrust 4 stroke and
throttling back for economy, as in Delaware discussion. Clyde
Kristine Bennett wrote:
> It's also intriguing to think about replacing the[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> water with batteries and using a couple trolling
> motors for propulsion. . .
>
> Useing batteries for ballest is a good idea. As is the
> trolling motor for propulsion.
>
> You golfcart batteries (T-105) are about 70 lbs each
> a
>
>
>
>
The Bolger 12ft "Peero" is a further iteration of the Anhinga idea, by way
of Bolger's test-boat "Eeek!". That hull is an Anhinga hull scaled down for
testing.
Bolger went back to the square stern on the Peero and kept plenty of
rocker. He considered this an improvement on Eeek.
You would not be pushing reality to add two "wings" at the stern of the
Anhinga for more buoyancy and places to shove stuff.. Bugeyes on the
Chesapeake, which were sharp-sterned, used a "patent stern" addition for
more working room. Bolger picked back up on this on the Birdwatcher II.
Just F everyone's I.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
of Bolger's test-boat "Eeek!". That hull is an Anhinga hull scaled down for
testing.
Bolger went back to the square stern on the Peero and kept plenty of
rocker. He considered this an improvement on Eeek.
You would not be pushing reality to add two "wings" at the stern of the
Anhinga for more buoyancy and places to shove stuff.. Bugeyes on the
Chesapeake, which were sharp-sterned, used a "patent stern" addition for
more working room. Bolger picked back up on this on the Birdwatcher II.
Just F everyone's I.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
Hey, no trouble. I only mentioned the thick stack of magazines to
hint at the need for patience. Something should have been done long
ago anyway. I've added the brief WB caption to Greg's Anhinga Archive.
The Sandy Bottoms incident was unfortunate. No need taking it
definitively though.
Only about 15 sheets of plywood...
Cheers.
hint at the need for patience. Something should have been done long
ago anyway. I've added the brief WB caption to Greg's Anhinga Archive.
The Sandy Bottoms incident was unfortunate. No need taking it
definitively though.
Only about 15 sheets of plywood...
Cheers.
> Mark --
> Thankyou for taking the trouble to find and post this Anhinga photo.
> My interest in Anhinga is even keener now despite the
> unfortunate "Sandy Bottoms" story.
>
>Here 'tis with the rest in Bolger cartoonsI get a 404 error.
><http://tinyurl.com/y8ro8s>http://tinyurl.com/y8ro8s
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I agree about golf cart batteries vs. marine deep cycle. Much
superior. I use a Cushman Titan at work. It is a 48volt electric
truck running off a bank of 8 golfcart batteries. It is used here a
lot and the battery bank is only recharged every 4 to 6 weeks. I have
used a marine deep cycle battery on my old sailboat and it was only
able to get us in and out of the dock a few times before it needed
recharging and the trolling motor was only 35 lb thrust.
Both boats I am currently working on will use golf cart batteries for
house batteries. The one that will be up on Lake Lanier (superbrick)
will have a trolling motor as I have found them to be really
effortless compared to most outboards. They always start while
outboards used infrequently can be really finicky.
Paul H
superior. I use a Cushman Titan at work. It is a 48volt electric
truck running off a bank of 8 golfcart batteries. It is used here a
lot and the battery bank is only recharged every 4 to 6 weeks. I have
used a marine deep cycle battery on my old sailboat and it was only
able to get us in and out of the dock a few times before it needed
recharging and the trolling motor was only 35 lb thrust.
Both boats I am currently working on will use golf cart batteries for
house batteries. The one that will be up on Lake Lanier (superbrick)
will have a trolling motor as I have found them to be really
effortless compared to most outboards. They always start while
outboards used infrequently can be really finicky.
Paul H
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
>
> It's also intriguing to think about replacing the
> water with batteries and using a couple trolling
> motors for propulsion. . .
>
>
> Useing batteries for ballest is a good idea. As is the
> trolling motor for propulsion.
>
> You golfcart batteries (T-105) are about 70 lbs each
> and they are 6 volts and are rated 225 to 235 amp
> hours. But to get the life out of them you should only
> discharge them to about 50%.
>
> So you will need to find out what the trolling motor
> draws for power at diffrent power settings and size
> your batteries to give you the range you will need at
> a given powersetting.
>
> Oh if you are thinking of adding solorpanales to add
> to the range nice idea but most of the time it doesn't
> work out unless you have about 180 sq. ft of panals
> and then they may add about 10 to 15% to your range.
>
> But the up side to having a couple of panals on the
> boat is they would help keep the batteries topped up
> after they were charged by plugging the boat in to
> charge it.
>
> Also look at the 24 volt trolling motors they will use
> less amps for a given thrust over a 12 volt system.
> And don't wast your money useing 12 volt deep cycle
> batteries they will not hold up to deep discharge like
> the golfcart batteries will. I know that the
> "salesman" will tell you they will, but not for long.
>
> I have talked to people that know what will hold up in
> an EV seeing how they happened to buld them.
>
> Blessings Kristine
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
It's also intriguing to think about replacing the
water with batteries and using a couple trolling
motors for propulsion. . .
Useing batteries for ballest is a good idea. As is the
trolling motor for propulsion.
You golfcart batteries (T-105) are about 70 lbs each
and they are 6 volts and are rated 225 to 235 amp
hours. But to get the life out of them you should only
discharge them to about 50%.
So you will need to find out what the trolling motor
draws for power at diffrent power settings and size
your batteries to give you the range you will need at
a given powersetting.
Oh if you are thinking of adding solorpanales to add
to the range nice idea but most of the time it doesn't
work out unless you have about 180 sq. ft of panals
and then they may add about 10 to 15% to your range.
But the up side to having a couple of panals on the
boat is they would help keep the batteries topped up
after they were charged by plugging the boat in to
charge it.
Also look at the 24 volt trolling motors they will use
less amps for a given thrust over a 12 volt system.
And don't wast your money useing 12 volt deep cycle
batteries they will not hold up to deep discharge like
the golfcart batteries will. I know that the
"salesman" will tell you they will, but not for long.
I have talked to people that know what will hold up in
an EV seeing how they happened to buld them.
Blessings Kristine
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
water with batteries and using a couple trolling
motors for propulsion. . .
Useing batteries for ballest is a good idea. As is the
trolling motor for propulsion.
You golfcart batteries (T-105) are about 70 lbs each
and they are 6 volts and are rated 225 to 235 amp
hours. But to get the life out of them you should only
discharge them to about 50%.
So you will need to find out what the trolling motor
draws for power at diffrent power settings and size
your batteries to give you the range you will need at
a given powersetting.
Oh if you are thinking of adding solorpanales to add
to the range nice idea but most of the time it doesn't
work out unless you have about 180 sq. ft of panals
and then they may add about 10 to 15% to your range.
But the up side to having a couple of panals on the
boat is they would help keep the batteries topped up
after they were charged by plugging the boat in to
charge it.
Also look at the 24 volt trolling motors they will use
less amps for a given thrust over a 12 volt system.
And don't wast your money useing 12 volt deep cycle
batteries they will not hold up to deep discharge like
the golfcart batteries will. I know that the
"salesman" will tell you they will, but not for long.
I have talked to people that know what will hold up in
an EV seeing how they happened to buld them.
Blessings Kristine
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Mark --
Thankyou for taking the trouble to find and post this Anhinga photo.
My interest in Anhinga is even keener now despite the
unfortunate "Sandy Bottoms" story.
The photo gives an idea of scale, and how it might feel to be in
this boat, but it certainly is modified from the plan. I'ts hard to
tell just where and how much it is changed. I can't see any added
step fins either, but then I can't make out the rudder delta shaped
end plate. Funny, because I think I can make out the pebbles on the
stream bottom, and, going from the plans dimensions for the boot
stripe, that rudder is just about out of the water: so the plate
should be visible.
The mast appears to be stepped around 2ft or so forward of its
position on the plan, and there appears to be no increased mast
rake to get the sail area centred again above where it was drawn.
Apart from that, the mainsail appears altered in some other respcts
too. Shifting the sail forward, as it appears to be, would certainly
lead to the large reported problem the boat had with lee helm. This
might have been compounded by poor rudder response if there is not
an end plate to the rudder too. I guess the addition of the mizzen
was then required for sail balance. The mizzen is not so bad - it
may not even detract much from the look, but it does add clutter.
I wonder if PCB drew the dipping lug sail option like the North Sea
luggers, relatively tall and square, or like his Ocean-Crossing
Rowboat concept (Chap 25, FS), long low and inclined - wow I'd like
to see that on Anhinga!
In the photo, what is that darker shaded rectangle just inside the
companion way? Is that a cut-out for some built-in storage?
Although cheap, light, and easy, Anhinga is still too large to try
on if it has a fundamental problem. That would be a big experiment
for most people. I think any issues could be addressed to make the
boat "workable", but there is still some risk that the boat ends up
too different to the dream. OTH there is also a sizeable risk that a
great boat has gone wanting due to unfounded bad reports, similar to
how Centenial ll numbers would seem to have suffered.
Graeme
Thankyou for taking the trouble to find and post this Anhinga photo.
My interest in Anhinga is even keener now despite the
unfortunate "Sandy Bottoms" story.
The photo gives an idea of scale, and how it might feel to be in
this boat, but it certainly is modified from the plan. I'ts hard to
tell just where and how much it is changed. I can't see any added
step fins either, but then I can't make out the rudder delta shaped
end plate. Funny, because I think I can make out the pebbles on the
stream bottom, and, going from the plans dimensions for the boot
stripe, that rudder is just about out of the water: so the plate
should be visible.
The mast appears to be stepped around 2ft or so forward of its
position on the plan, and there appears to be no increased mast
rake to get the sail area centred again above where it was drawn.
Apart from that, the mainsail appears altered in some other respcts
too. Shifting the sail forward, as it appears to be, would certainly
lead to the large reported problem the boat had with lee helm. This
might have been compounded by poor rudder response if there is not
an end plate to the rudder too. I guess the addition of the mizzen
was then required for sail balance. The mizzen is not so bad - it
may not even detract much from the look, but it does add clutter.
I wonder if PCB drew the dipping lug sail option like the North Sea
luggers, relatively tall and square, or like his Ocean-Crossing
Rowboat concept (Chap 25, FS), long low and inclined - wow I'd like
to see that on Anhinga!
In the photo, what is that darker shaded rectangle just inside the
companion way? Is that a cut-out for some built-in storage?
Although cheap, light, and easy, Anhinga is still too large to try
on if it has a fundamental problem. That would be a big experiment
for most people. I think any issues could be addressed to make the
boat "workable", but there is still some risk that the boat ends up
too different to the dream. OTH there is also a sizeable risk that a
great boat has gone wanting due to unfounded bad reports, similar to
how Centenial ll numbers would seem to have suffered.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
> Sheesh! Anhinga is truly the perfect boat for its requirements.
And
> It's cheaper, lighter and easier to build than either BW or MJ.
It
> really is baffling to me no one has every built one stock.
>
> Mark
Yes,. the kind of pivots and slides along the slot at the top.
I've always thought the two main reasons for Dave's capsize may have
been not acting fast enough with the mizzen hardened up in a gust
combined with the "step fins" under the oarports tripping the boat.
But I couldn't see them in the picture.
One reason I prefer Anhinga to BW is the real cockpit. On the other
hand, if anybody cared to, it would be possible to build Anhinga with
clear upper sides and a slot down the cabin. Best of both worlds.
Getting the batteries out of the way of the accommodations is also an
Anhinga advantage over a more rockered boat when used as an electric
launch. If you've got the truck, 500 pound of batteries makes the all
up cruising weight 1500#. The hull itself has good lines to a ton.
As a straight eboat a box cutwater would help. These don't seem so
simple for me to size, though. I also wonder if it would be possible
to split the stern narrowly in order to tilt a small outboard up.
Just calculate the buoyancy lost and move the batteries slightly
forward?
Sheesh! Anhinga is truly the perfect boat for its requirements. And
It's cheaper, lighter and easier to build than either BW or MJ. It
really is baffling to me no one has every built one stock.
Mark
I've always thought the two main reasons for Dave's capsize may have
been not acting fast enough with the mizzen hardened up in a gust
combined with the "step fins" under the oarports tripping the boat.
But I couldn't see them in the picture.
One reason I prefer Anhinga to BW is the real cockpit. On the other
hand, if anybody cared to, it would be possible to build Anhinga with
clear upper sides and a slot down the cabin. Best of both worlds.
Getting the batteries out of the way of the accommodations is also an
Anhinga advantage over a more rockered boat when used as an electric
launch. If you've got the truck, 500 pound of batteries makes the all
up cruising weight 1500#. The hull itself has good lines to a ton.
As a straight eboat a box cutwater would help. These don't seem so
simple for me to size, though. I also wonder if it would be possible
to split the stern narrowly in order to tilt a small outboard up.
Just calculate the buoyancy lost and move the batteries slightly
forward?
Sheesh! Anhinga is truly the perfect boat for its requirements. And
It's cheaper, lighter and easier to build than either BW or MJ. It
really is baffling to me no one has every built one stock.
Mark
On Oct 20, 2006, at 7:11 PM, gbship wrote:
> it looks like they've done something with the leeboard.
Mark: Thanks for posting the picture. Aside from the mizzen, it looks
like they've done something with the leeboard. I always though I
would use a swinging leeboard because the implications of a fixed
dagger leeboard aren't pleasant in my home waters. Notice, though,
that a fully raised pivoting leeboard would block the oarport;
Michalak gets around this by rowing with the leeboard partlially
down. In the picture, it looks like the leeboard pivots and once
fully up can be slid forward along the hull to clear the oarport.
Interesting. Or maybe that's just how it stores.
Gary L.: I may try the "capsize" tomorrow; not much would need to be
removed and I think maximum stress comes at 45-50 degrees of heel.
Will see. Had nice winds for testing today, but I was at work.
Prediction tomorrow is for light winds -- of course!
Graeme: Hadn't though of the implications of a tail-heavy design when
the boat is on its side. My plan would be to skip the ventilation
ports in the aft compartment and substitute mushroom vents, either
passive or solar powered, on the deck instead. But that concern would
tend to favor using batteries under a bridge desk for some or all of
the water ballast, keeping the weight more centered.
And yes, the catboat you referred to is Cartoon 40. I built the 25
percent stretch version and was very happy with it. It's a lot nicer
to use if you take some pains with the trailer supports and use lots
of rollers (which I didn't) and put the mast in a tabernacle (which I
eventually did). A great sailing boat. i might have used it in the
Everglades Challenge, but it was pretty heavy and I wasn't sure I
could have managed to beach launch that heavily rockered v-bottom. I
think the Frolic2 that replaced it is probably faster in most
conditions, but the catboat gave a better ride and handling.
Gary Blankenship
like they've done something with the leeboard. I always though I
would use a swinging leeboard because the implications of a fixed
dagger leeboard aren't pleasant in my home waters. Notice, though,
that a fully raised pivoting leeboard would block the oarport;
Michalak gets around this by rowing with the leeboard partlially
down. In the picture, it looks like the leeboard pivots and once
fully up can be slid forward along the hull to clear the oarport.
Interesting. Or maybe that's just how it stores.
Gary L.: I may try the "capsize" tomorrow; not much would need to be
removed and I think maximum stress comes at 45-50 degrees of heel.
Will see. Had nice winds for testing today, but I was at work.
Prediction tomorrow is for light winds -- of course!
Graeme: Hadn't though of the implications of a tail-heavy design when
the boat is on its side. My plan would be to skip the ventilation
ports in the aft compartment and substitute mushroom vents, either
passive or solar powered, on the deck instead. But that concern would
tend to favor using batteries under a bridge desk for some or all of
the water ballast, keeping the weight more centered.
And yes, the catboat you referred to is Cartoon 40. I built the 25
percent stretch version and was very happy with it. It's a lot nicer
to use if you take some pains with the trailer supports and use lots
of rollers (which I didn't) and put the mast in a tabernacle (which I
eventually did). A great sailing boat. i might have used it in the
Everglades Challenge, but it was pretty heavy and I wasn't sure I
could have managed to beach launch that heavily rockered v-bottom. I
think the Frolic2 that replaced it is probably faster in most
conditions, but the catboat gave a better ride and handling.
Gary Blankenship
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Lepak" <gnjlepak@...> wrote:
>
> Gary B.,
>
> Your mast sounds pretty beefy. I'll be interested to hear how it
bends in
> more wind and also how your capsize test works. Every time I say I
am going
> to do a stability test I decide not to because of the stuff inside
I don't
> want to get wet and don't want to unload. Maybe next year. I
guess I would
> use a halyard as a stay to protect the mast from breaking while
pulling the
> boat over.
>
>
> Speaking of stability and Anhinga, Martha Jane, Dovekie, I worry
about what
> would happen in a knockdown even with all my sealed areas of cabin
and
> lockers. I have thought seriously of building detatchable sponsons
about 8'
> long, 8" thick and sticking out from the hull 12". (It would look
sort of
> like the Gloucester Yawl). I think the boat could lay on it's side
on these
> and not take in any, or much, water. If they worked really well I
would
> sail without the 350 lbs of water ballast. They also would make a
good seat
> to hike out on when heeled. Then when detached from the the boat
they would
> be the basis of a little catamaran tender. The trick would be to
make the
> conversion take less time than blowing up a dinghy, about 5-10
minutes.
>
> I've thought of the batteries as ballast, and electric motor too.
For when
> I get tired of pedalling maybe.
>
> Gary L.
> ----- Original Message -----
>
Here 'tis with the rest in Bolger cartoons
http://tinyurl.com/y8ro8s
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://tinyurl.com/y8ro8s
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Gary B.,
Your mast sounds pretty beefy. I'll be interested to hear how it bends in
more wind and also how your capsize test works. Every time I say I am going
to do a stability test I decide not to because of the stuff inside I don't
want to get wet and don't want to unload. Maybe next year. I guess I would
use a halyard as a stay to protect the mast from breaking while pulling the
boat over.
Speaking of stability and Anhinga, Martha Jane, Dovekie, I worry about what
would happen in a knockdown even with all my sealed areas of cabin and
lockers. I have thought seriously of building detatchable sponsons about 8'
long, 8" thick and sticking out from the hull 12". (It would look sort of
like the Gloucester Yawl). I think the boat could lay on it's side on these
and not take in any, or much, water. If they worked really well I would
sail without the 350 lbs of water ballast. They also would make a good seat
to hike out on when heeled. Then when detached from the the boat they would
be the basis of a little catamaran tender. The trick would be to make the
conversion take less time than blowing up a dinghy, about 5-10 minutes.
I've thought of the batteries as ballast, and electric motor too. For when
I get tired of pedalling maybe.
Gary L.
Your mast sounds pretty beefy. I'll be interested to hear how it bends in
more wind and also how your capsize test works. Every time I say I am going
to do a stability test I decide not to because of the stuff inside I don't
want to get wet and don't want to unload. Maybe next year. I guess I would
use a halyard as a stay to protect the mast from breaking while pulling the
boat over.
Speaking of stability and Anhinga, Martha Jane, Dovekie, I worry about what
would happen in a knockdown even with all my sealed areas of cabin and
lockers. I have thought seriously of building detatchable sponsons about 8'
long, 8" thick and sticking out from the hull 12". (It would look sort of
like the Gloucester Yawl). I think the boat could lay on it's side on these
and not take in any, or much, water. If they worked really well I would
sail without the 350 lbs of water ballast. They also would make a good seat
to hike out on when heeled. Then when detached from the the boat they would
be the basis of a little catamaran tender. The trick would be to make the
conversion take less time than blowing up a dinghy, about 5-10 minutes.
I've thought of the batteries as ballast, and electric motor too. For when
I get tired of pedalling maybe.
Gary L.
----- Original Message -----
From: "gbship" <gbship@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 9:27 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Anhinga, plus a carbon mast question
> Mark If you can find the old WB picture I'd really appreciate it
> Thanks for taking the time.
>
> Gary: wish I had your stack of old masts! I got a 2-art 18-foot mast
> from a dealer; he said there was a design flaw that caused them to
> break just above the joint -- which this one had,or rather it has
> splintered. Got it for $20. Repaired the break and permanently joined
> the 2 parts by wrapping a piece of heavy carbon fiber (like woven
> roving in regular glass) plus a couple layers of biaxial sleeving,
> with all the ends staggered. Then put two lawyers of sleeving on the
> entire mast, and an extra layer on the upper half, plus an additional
> layer at the partners & masthead. Finsihed with a layer of fiberglass
> sleeving. In retrospect, I should have gotten the more expensive
> unidirectional sleeving; I think it would have provided most
> stiffness with less layers than the biaxial sleeving. Next time at
> the lake, I may try pulling the boat over (at the shore) with the
> halyard. I'd ather break the mast there than in the gulf off the
> Everglades. I think the carbon mast is heavier than it could
> optimally be, but it's less half of less of the weight of the wood
> mast, and consequently much easier to handle.
>
> I've had the mental debate that Graeme and Nels had had on Anhinga v.
> Birdwatcher. It comes down to that I just like the looks of Ankinga
> better, plus it would be lighter on the trailer. I would have it with
> a leftover 135 square foot gaff sail, with the boom set high enough
> to allow a bimini over most of the cockpit, which in turn makes the
> water ballast attractive. It's also intriguing to think about
> replacing the water with batteries and using a couple trolling motors
> for propulsion. . .
>
> Thanks for everyones comments, and to those to dug through the dusty
> archives. I visited there, too, with mixed results . . .
>
> I'll post a picture when I get the model build, but it's likely to be
> a whie.
>
>
> Gary Blankenship
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gbship" <gbship@...> wrote:
to your model photos, Gary
attractive. The possibillities have been gnawing at me for a year or
two since I first saw the drawings in files.
much for my foray there. The way yahoo worked before meant I'd never
tried to search back on Anhinga. I think people have chased down
most issues in discussion, but not to a conclusive verdict and
recommendation. I'm under the impression that including more ballast
was the most adopted view on preventing flooding, and find it
interesting that the designer thought instead that addition of more
flotation was what may be needed. I thought myself that extra
flotation sponsons outside would definately solve the problem, but
it seems PCB would place it inside.
I think the fact that the ballast c.o.g is well aft of the boat
c.o.g and c.o.b has been over looked, and when she is on her side
with the rail under, or flooded, there is a large imbalance between
the bouyant cabin section forward and the heavy stern. If the
relatively small aft compartment is likely over loaded by the stern
weight, then Jim Michalak would say such a hull with all (nearly)
her bouyancy at one end is the most difficult to right as it will be
inclined to stand on its end.
To catboats: Gary, would this entry I've copied here, for a boat in
a list of catboats, from message #2370 be the Casual Sailing Dinghy
aka Cartoon 40?
#535
Plywood Catboat
15'6"x6'6"
Description: A neat, low, tack-n-tape daysailing catboat, almost
fully
decked, designed for SBJ, prototype built by Gary Blankenship in
Florida. (Are you out there, Gary?)
Verdict: Looks like great fun, but not the family daysailer/minimal
cruiser that I want.
More info: MAIB 12-10-28, SBJ ?
cheers
Graeme
>I too look forward to your WB picture, Mark, and also look forward
> Mark If you can find the old WB picture I'd really appreciate it
> Thanks for taking the time.
to your model photos, Gary
>..It comes down to that I just like the looks of Anhinga....Anhinga has looks, style and possibilities that quite a few find
attractive. The possibillities have been gnawing at me for a year or
two since I first saw the drawings in files.
> archives. I visited there, too, with mixed results . . .Yes, the ideas I'd formed about Anhinga were not changed or extended
much for my foray there. The way yahoo worked before meant I'd never
tried to search back on Anhinga. I think people have chased down
most issues in discussion, but not to a conclusive verdict and
recommendation. I'm under the impression that including more ballast
was the most adopted view on preventing flooding, and find it
interesting that the designer thought instead that addition of more
flotation was what may be needed. I thought myself that extra
flotation sponsons outside would definately solve the problem, but
it seems PCB would place it inside.
I think the fact that the ballast c.o.g is well aft of the boat
c.o.g and c.o.b has been over looked, and when she is on her side
with the rail under, or flooded, there is a large imbalance between
the bouyant cabin section forward and the heavy stern. If the
relatively small aft compartment is likely over loaded by the stern
weight, then Jim Michalak would say such a hull with all (nearly)
her bouyancy at one end is the most difficult to right as it will be
inclined to stand on its end.
To catboats: Gary, would this entry I've copied here, for a boat in
a list of catboats, from message #2370 be the Casual Sailing Dinghy
aka Cartoon 40?
#535
Plywood Catboat
15'6"x6'6"
Description: A neat, low, tack-n-tape daysailing catboat, almost
fully
decked, designed for SBJ, prototype built by Gary Blankenship in
Florida. (Are you out there, Gary?)
Verdict: Looks like great fun, but not the family daysailer/minimal
cruiser that I want.
More info: MAIB 12-10-28, SBJ ?
cheers
Graeme
Mark If you can find the old WB picture I'd really appreciate it
Thanks for taking the time.
Gary: wish I had your stack of old masts! I got a 2-art 18-foot mast
from a dealer; he said there was a design flaw that caused them to
break just above the joint -- which this one had,or rather it has
splintered. Got it for $20. Repaired the break and permanently joined
the 2 parts by wrapping a piece of heavy carbon fiber (like woven
roving in regular glass) plus a couple layers of biaxial sleeving,
with all the ends staggered. Then put two lawyers of sleeving on the
entire mast, and an extra layer on the upper half, plus an additional
layer at the partners & masthead. Finsihed with a layer of fiberglass
sleeving. In retrospect, I should have gotten the more expensive
unidirectional sleeving; I think it would have provided most
stiffness with less layers than the biaxial sleeving. Next time at
the lake, I may try pulling the boat over (at the shore) with the
halyard. I'd ather break the mast there than in the gulf off the
Everglades. I think the carbon mast is heavier than it could
optimally be, but it's less half of less of the weight of the wood
mast, and consequently much easier to handle.
I've had the mental debate that Graeme and Nels had had on Anhinga v.
Birdwatcher. It comes down to that I just like the looks of Ankinga
better, plus it would be lighter on the trailer. I would have it with
a leftover 135 square foot gaff sail, with the boom set high enough
to allow a bimini over most of the cockpit, which in turn makes the
water ballast attractive. It's also intriguing to think about
replacing the water with batteries and using a couple trolling motors
for propulsion. . .
Thanks for everyones comments, and to those to dug through the dusty
archives. I visited there, too, with mixed results . . .
I'll post a picture when I get the model build, but it's likely to be
a whie.
Gary Blankenship
Thanks for taking the time.
Gary: wish I had your stack of old masts! I got a 2-art 18-foot mast
from a dealer; he said there was a design flaw that caused them to
break just above the joint -- which this one had,or rather it has
splintered. Got it for $20. Repaired the break and permanently joined
the 2 parts by wrapping a piece of heavy carbon fiber (like woven
roving in regular glass) plus a couple layers of biaxial sleeving,
with all the ends staggered. Then put two lawyers of sleeving on the
entire mast, and an extra layer on the upper half, plus an additional
layer at the partners & masthead. Finsihed with a layer of fiberglass
sleeving. In retrospect, I should have gotten the more expensive
unidirectional sleeving; I think it would have provided most
stiffness with less layers than the biaxial sleeving. Next time at
the lake, I may try pulling the boat over (at the shore) with the
halyard. I'd ather break the mast there than in the gulf off the
Everglades. I think the carbon mast is heavier than it could
optimally be, but it's less half of less of the weight of the wood
mast, and consequently much easier to handle.
I've had the mental debate that Graeme and Nels had had on Anhinga v.
Birdwatcher. It comes down to that I just like the looks of Ankinga
better, plus it would be lighter on the trailer. I would have it with
a leftover 135 square foot gaff sail, with the boom set high enough
to allow a bimini over most of the cockpit, which in turn makes the
water ballast attractive. It's also intriguing to think about
replacing the water with batteries and using a couple trolling motors
for propulsion. . .
Thanks for everyones comments, and to those to dug through the dusty
archives. I visited there, too, with mixed results . . .
I'll post a picture when I get the model build, but it's likely to be
a whie.
Gary Blankenship
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Lepak" <gnjlepak@...> wrote:
>
> The first mast I used on Bufflehead was a plain 15' windsurfer mast
with an
> 80sf tarp dipping lug sail. In about 15 knots it would bend
alarmingly.
> Looked like the tip moved 3', though it might have been less.
Never broke
> but scared me enough to build a stronger mast by sleeving together
3 partial
> windsurfer masts that fit together pretty snugly, glued with epoxy,
to make
> a 16' mast. I've used that with up to 100sf or so in strong winds
and it
> bent a lot less. Though having the sail impaled on the broken mast
is a
> possibility, I think maybe the mast is stressed more when the
balanced lug
> is on the lee side, more like a dipping lug, with most of the pull
at the
> top of the mast. I've broken a carbon windsurfer mast in the surf,
from
> wave and water stress, but never just from sailing (windsurfing
that is). I
> did have an aluminum windsurfer mast break just above the boom with
no
> warning. But I've never had a sailboat mast break. My guess is
there
> wouldn't be any warning unless your added carbon started
delaminating from
> the bending stress. Since windsurfer masts are designed to bend,
and not
> designed generally to carry 113 sf of sail, they are kind of iffy.
If
> possible I would get a plug in the partners area, or if you can't
do that,
> add a lot of glass or carbon there tapered out up and down.
Usually the
> masts are strong in the boom area, but that is about 5' from the
bottom.
> When they do break in windsurfing it almost always just above the
boom.
> I've used unreinforced masts on smaller boats with less sail area,
like 45
> sf and not worried about them as the boats were not stiff enough
to break
> the mast. I've been told by a boat designer that if I tried to
pull
> Bufflehead over by the masthead (as a stability test) I would
probably break
> the mast before it capsized. Maybe that's a safety feature ;-)
>
> Good luck. Let us know how it works.
>
> Gary L.
>
>
JFtR
Not Sandy Shoes. Not Soggy Sneakers, the way I misremembered it
either, Sandy Bottoms was the first Anhinga.
I'll see about scanning the nice little pic from WB. Will have to
flip through a great pile of old mags though.
Mark
Not Sandy Shoes. Not Soggy Sneakers, the way I misremembered it
either, Sandy Bottoms was the first Anhinga.
I'll see about scanning the nice little pic from WB. Will have to
flip through a great pile of old mags though.
Mark
>
> Reference is to Sandy Shoes, converted to a yawl.
>
>
> =====================================================================
>
Hi Nels,
I've been down to the archives, and it's pretty dusty in there let
me tell you. I'm not a lot wiser about Anhinga, and I'm not sure she
was meant to be for lot's of seagoing either. I don't have much
impression of what main use she was for. She was probably a step
along the way in developing a seagoing cruiser and being still too
small herself for that role had elements included mainly for more
semi-protected, protected, and thin water sailing.
It seems not even any Eeek!s have been built, though people say
they'd love one. An Anhinga test vessel, Fat Eeek!, scaled up at 30"
beam, was built, or nearly so, by one Bolgerado. Unfortunately there
are no reports of her sailing, or even on the water, so I take it
that the project went uncompleted as if it had sailed well, or
atrociously, then I think that would have been posted with much
subsequent discussion.
I'll attach two extracts below from the archives that kind of
indicate the problem with acceptance of the Anhinga etc "seagoing
sharpie" type: massive Bolgerado concern with percieved type
dysfunction; and the designer not agreeing with that assessment, but
also not hard selling the type either.
It's said in the archives that the Anhinga design dates from the PCB
capsizing period. I think it may have some issues that need
rectifying, as others did. I'm sure though that it could be done.
The designer would most likely offer the builder any necessary help
to make her "workable".
Cheers
Graeme
PS It seems I lose the bet on the dipping lug sail ;-)
===================================================================
Message #29380 WeBookPeople@... john_fader
In a message dated 7/7/03 6:58:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bolger@yahoogroups.comwrites:
yes there were, substantial ones, plus problems experienced and not
well
solved by original builder.
I bought the plans in 86 or so, intending to build her, even had PCB
do me a
dipping lug.. .big one :-).
Before I got started, I found that another fellow (Dave...???,
called the
boat something like Sandy Shoes) contacted me or the other way
round. He
expressed some doubts and told me some of Phil's. I decided to wait.
After
Dave???
finished and launched the boat, he wrote me a long letter with pix
of building,
sailing, etc. He built her nearly as needs be to the plans.
Now, I traded my plans to someone on this list a few years back;
included all
my files, so I can't tell you exactly what was wrong, but she was at
least:
lee-helmed, far tippier than planned, and even after the lee helm
was fixed,
would hang in stays quite easily. Dave??? was not at all pleased
with the boat.
I'd be very disinclined to recommend this design.
Cheers/The Fader
Message #29390 "Mark A." <marka@...> marka97203
Re: [bolger] Anhinga, was Re: Economy seagoing cruiser, deficiencies
Hand written note from PCB:
Philip C. Bolger
29 Ferry Street
Gloucester, MA 01930 U.S.A.
March 6, 1991
Dear Mark,
I've been arguing that the Birdwatcher design is a superior solution
to the same
wish list, but it's
a fact that I find the Anhinga design attractive and would like to
see one built
as designed. The
Eeek! canoe is not much of a boat, but its behavior suggested that a
bigger
version would be
respectable.
At worst, it may need more positive buoyancy. Placing this will make
it much
less roomy, so she
shouldn't have it if she can get by without. I don't see how the
modified
Anhinga could have got
bottom up unless the stern compartment flooded some way.
Reference is to Sandy Shoes, converted to a yawl.
Mark
=====================================================================
I've been down to the archives, and it's pretty dusty in there let
me tell you. I'm not a lot wiser about Anhinga, and I'm not sure she
was meant to be for lot's of seagoing either. I don't have much
impression of what main use she was for. She was probably a step
along the way in developing a seagoing cruiser and being still too
small herself for that role had elements included mainly for more
semi-protected, protected, and thin water sailing.
It seems not even any Eeek!s have been built, though people say
they'd love one. An Anhinga test vessel, Fat Eeek!, scaled up at 30"
beam, was built, or nearly so, by one Bolgerado. Unfortunately there
are no reports of her sailing, or even on the water, so I take it
that the project went uncompleted as if it had sailed well, or
atrociously, then I think that would have been posted with much
subsequent discussion.
I'll attach two extracts below from the archives that kind of
indicate the problem with acceptance of the Anhinga etc "seagoing
sharpie" type: massive Bolgerado concern with percieved type
dysfunction; and the designer not agreeing with that assessment, but
also not hard selling the type either.
It's said in the archives that the Anhinga design dates from the PCB
capsizing period. I think it may have some issues that need
rectifying, as others did. I'm sure though that it could be done.
The designer would most likely offer the builder any necessary help
to make her "workable".
Cheers
Graeme
PS It seems I lose the bet on the dipping lug sail ;-)
===================================================================
Message #29380 WeBookPeople@... john_fader
In a message dated 7/7/03 6:58:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bolger@yahoogroups.comwrites:
> ....(SNIP)believe
> weren't there some second thoughts by PCB regarding this design (I
> something about the narrow stern and flat run aft)?David,
yes there were, substantial ones, plus problems experienced and not
well
solved by original builder.
I bought the plans in 86 or so, intending to build her, even had PCB
do me a
dipping lug.. .big one :-).
Before I got started, I found that another fellow (Dave...???,
called the
boat something like Sandy Shoes) contacted me or the other way
round. He
expressed some doubts and told me some of Phil's. I decided to wait.
After
Dave???
finished and launched the boat, he wrote me a long letter with pix
of building,
sailing, etc. He built her nearly as needs be to the plans.
Now, I traded my plans to someone on this list a few years back;
included all
my files, so I can't tell you exactly what was wrong, but she was at
least:
lee-helmed, far tippier than planned, and even after the lee helm
was fixed,
would hang in stays quite easily. Dave??? was not at all pleased
with the boat.
I'd be very disinclined to recommend this design.
Cheers/The Fader
Message #29390 "Mark A." <marka@...> marka97203
Re: [bolger] Anhinga, was Re: Economy seagoing cruiser, deficiencies
Hand written note from PCB:
Philip C. Bolger
29 Ferry Street
Gloucester, MA 01930 U.S.A.
March 6, 1991
Dear Mark,
I've been arguing that the Birdwatcher design is a superior solution
to the same
wish list, but it's
a fact that I find the Anhinga design attractive and would like to
see one built
as designed. The
Eeek! canoe is not much of a boat, but its behavior suggested that a
bigger
version would be
respectable.
At worst, it may need more positive buoyancy. Placing this will make
it much
less roomy, so she
shouldn't have it if she can get by without. I don't see how the
modified
Anhinga could have got
bottom up unless the stern compartment flooded some way.
Reference is to Sandy Shoes, converted to a yawl.
Mark
=====================================================================
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@>
> wrote:
> How "workable" is Birdwatcher at sea?
>
> It was designed as a self-righting inshore use boat and Bolger
refers
> to it as his favorite design.
>
> Not many seem to agree.
>
> Nels
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
How "workable" is Birdwatcher at sea?
It was designed as a self-righting inshore use boat and Bolger refers
to it as his favorite design.
Not many seem to agree.
Nels
wrote:
How "workable" is Birdwatcher at sea?
It was designed as a self-righting inshore use boat and Bolger refers
to it as his favorite design.
Not many seem to agree.
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
or striking sail in the Birdwatcher user mode. It's interesting to
find that PCB also has a dipping lug sail plan for Anhinga (I'd
wager it was his first option.). That sail demands a bit of effort
and hopping about the place in use, and is not at all as easily set
or tacked in a manner that would suit the Birdwatcher mode. It is
also a sail best where a long course on the one tack can be set,
like at sea, rather than tight tacking through narrow shallows. (As
the dipping lug is also a strong lifting sail I wonder if it might
add to the negative pitching arising from the ballast location?)
How "workable" is Birdwatcher at sea?
entirely.
design template appears to have stalled for lack of developmental
testing opportunities, and constructive feedback. Only one Anhinga
ever built - not to plan - which resulted in it being widely known
that there was both a disappionted builder and designer; and an
important question mark hanging over the type. If people then shy
away from this sailing type, then no big deal, PCB has other irons
in the fire. Refinement may continue now, but in powered craft only
it seems.
Graeme
> "Workable" might mean that "Anhinga can be made to work, butI think "workable" most likely refers mostly to the ease of setting
>Birdwatcher does it better".
or striking sail in the Birdwatcher user mode. It's interesting to
find that PCB also has a dipping lug sail plan for Anhinga (I'd
wager it was his first option.). That sail demands a bit of effort
and hopping about the place in use, and is not at all as easily set
or tacked in a manner that would suit the Birdwatcher mode. It is
also a sail best where a long course on the one tack can be set,
like at sea, rather than tight tacking through narrow shallows. (As
the dipping lug is also a strong lifting sail I wonder if it might
add to the negative pitching arising from the ballast location?)
How "workable" is Birdwatcher at sea?
> I think that you will find that to make changes to Anhinga so thatThe reverse also applies. The boats functionally overlap, but not
>it is as capable as Birdwatcher under all normal conditions, you
>will end up with a re-designed Birdwatcher.
entirely.
> Almost all of Bolgers later designs are refinements of previousRefining the Economy Seagoing Cruiser, or Eeek!, seagoing sharpie
>boats...
design template appears to have stalled for lack of developmental
testing opportunities, and constructive feedback. Only one Anhinga
ever built - not to plan - which resulted in it being widely known
that there was both a disappionted builder and designer; and an
important question mark hanging over the type. If people then shy
away from this sailing type, then no big deal, PCB has other irons
in the fire. Refinement may continue now, but in powered craft only
it seems.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
be made to work, but Birdwatcher does it better".
I think that you will find that to make changes to Anhinga so that it
is as capable as Birdwatcher under all normal conditions, you will end
up with a re-designed Birdwatcher.
Almost all of Bolgers later designs are refinements of previous boats
that although they were aesthetically pleasing to the eye were not as
capable as the later ones.
Bolger has stated, and I paraphrase here.
"What a lot of people do not understand is that the looks they don't
like are responsible for the performance they do like."
I believe aesthetics can get clouded by prejudice based on "How a boat
should look."
To me Birdwatcher, Micro, and Martha Jane are all aesthetically
pleasing as I can see their obvious advantages over their more
traditional forebears.
For example a double ended canoe yawl makes no sense at all if you
want a motor, a mizzen and a rudder all in the same stern, yet these
are considered aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Same with long
overhangs, undewater foils and high aspect rigs when all one wants to
do is potter around the local lake or shoreline and let go of stress
while communing with nature.
Nels
wrote:
>"Workable" might mean that "Anhinga can
be made to work, but Birdwatcher does it better".
I think that you will find that to make changes to Anhinga so that it
is as capable as Birdwatcher under all normal conditions, you will end
up with a re-designed Birdwatcher.
Almost all of Bolgers later designs are refinements of previous boats
that although they were aesthetically pleasing to the eye were not as
capable as the later ones.
Bolger has stated, and I paraphrase here.
"What a lot of people do not understand is that the looks they don't
like are responsible for the performance they do like."
I believe aesthetics can get clouded by prejudice based on "How a boat
should look."
To me Birdwatcher, Micro, and Martha Jane are all aesthetically
pleasing as I can see their obvious advantages over their more
traditional forebears.
For example a double ended canoe yawl makes no sense at all if you
want a motor, a mizzen and a rudder all in the same stern, yet these
are considered aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Same with long
overhangs, undewater foils and high aspect rigs when all one wants to
do is potter around the local lake or shoreline and let go of stress
while communing with nature.
Nels
Watch out for pitching.
The peculiarities of _water_ ballast and the _placement_ in Anhinga
most likely (I haven't done the numbers) cause some "interesting"
effects. The "apparent" Centre Of Gravity of the ballast shifts
athwartships as below waterline water ballast can do. However, how
much will she pitch with any kind of ballast centred where it is,
and is the stern sufficiently bouyant to float those aft openings
clear above water when she does?
Bottom line is: I think corrections like bouyant aft gained from
high, wedgey, stub winged shaped sponsons like on the revised Martha
Jane wouldn't go with the look (maybe with lot's of chrome like car
tail fins of the fifties?). Other fixes can be made, probably with
loss of some designed function or other, but the aesthetic could
probably be preserved.
I see at the message bottom that there are now 71 messages for this
topic. I went through this new yahoo feature and got a bit of info
but most of it has been mentioned more recently, or is actually off
topic. Searching <Anhinga> returns 193 hits. I haven't gone back
very far into them, but would be willing to bet most are also off
topic.
Anyway, a few months ago I finally got what I think might be a small
insight into what the whole Anhinga thing is about, and some
crystalisation of the issues that go with it; I'll take a risk on
being shot down. I posted 'Anhinga (or Rubens) by Numbers #50267'
after reading PCB's Burgandy comparison (and being flush with his
witty analogy after a good read). I meant to do the actual numbers,
at least a few static ones sufficient to generate a stability curve,
but life and an unstable computer pushed that aside. I wasn't in a
hurry anyway as I thought the boat was a bit too big a project for
me at the time.
===================================================================
Anhinga by Numbers (maybe).
Joseph Gribbens, in his PCB biography, wrote "Bolger is inspired by
thoughts of boats that will be pure and perfect, but unbothered - so
he says - by boats that incorporate the "crude solutions" he
cheerfully admits in a lot of his own work. "Some boats are better
than others; but it's not important that they be better," he says in
a conversation about the uses to which various types are put. He
means (by) this "any sort of boat will do" in the general sense that
a boat roughly suitable to its purpose can achieve its purpose, and
in the social sense that it's good for people to enjoy themselves on
the water whatever they're in, so long as they don't get drowned."
(Nautical Quarterly 21, Spring 1983)
http://hallman.org/bolger/BolgerBio.htmlBefore looking at
the "refined" Anhinga take a look at a "crude solution" that could
make you scream: "Eeek!" .
PCB said that he had an idea to build a seagoing sharpie with a
pointed stern without rocker that would allow more ballast to be
carried without increasing the size of the midsection. That is,
increase stiffness, stability, and momentum without increasing draft
or LWB, and so, I guess, have better lines, L/B, performance, and
economy of materials. He designed, and had Eeek! built on a smaller
scale as a test for possible vices of this model. PCB wrote the
cruising canoe Eeek! "sails and handles quite well.", also that he
didn't dispose of her quickly but used her extensively for _three_
seasons. He doesn't mention whether any vices were found from the
test other than the canoe crew was unable to lean against heel, nor
satisfactorily use a double paddle due to the high sides, but these
vices are not relevant to the larger seagoing sharpie.
Now, he wrote me that "Eeek!" was not much of a boat, and offered
the "Peero" plan. _But, what does he mean by not much of a boat?_
What does he mean, what's the context? This perhaps requires some
consideration as he has already published that Eeek! sails and
handles quite well.
1) Eeek! and Peero are the same length and beam and clearly the
lower sides of Peero make it easier for crew to lean against heel,
and to use a double paddle. But PCB successfully used a single
paddle and the ballast in Eeek! made for stiffness and rendered her
able to be reboarded without outrigging floats. The sides of Eeek!
could be cut down if double paddling were important.
2) Perhaps the pivoting foils on Peero make her better, but they
could be easily put on Eeek!
3) Perhaps the gaff rig on Peero is easier furled, and crew wouldn't
capsize one out of five times when trying, but it could be put on
Eeek!
4) Perhaps the tack and tape construction is better on Peero, but
Eeek! could be easily built this way too.
5) On the other hand, Peero wouldn't benefit from the ballast
feature of Eeek! and as Peero builders have declared her tippy I'd
sooner stand in Eeek! than Peero. And the sail, or a bug net can be
stretched over the cockpit of Eeek! making a snug camping shelter.
I think that by "not much of a boat" PCB means perhaps that for a
stock plan for a little sailing canoe Peero already has the above
features, and he is unwilling to take the time to do a revised plan
having these features for Eeek! I don't think he is refering to the
pointed stern, nil rocker, and ballasted form of the model as
rendering her a "not-much-of-a-boat", or dog. Eeek! was plan #407,
and the big seagoing sharpie remained a proposal, for some reason.
I wrote PCB in part about Anhinga. PCB agreed that Anhinga
was "aesthetically pleasing". He said, importantly, that she
was "workable". He said that she was made "technically obsolete"
by "Birdwatcher". So - she is workable; and as for beauty, if
#384 "Burgandy" is PCB's Playboy centrefold rendition of L F
Herroshoff's original Rubens "Rozinante", then #484 "Anhinga" is a
hundred better.
PCB's response is interesting, if short. _What does he mean
by "workable", and "made technically obsolete by Birdwatcher"?
What's the context? If looked at for what a Birdwatcher might do
then Birdwatcher does those things either as well or better, but
Anhinga should have some capabilities that Birdwatcher simply does
not have. If looked at in that way Anhinga is not made "technically
obsolescent" by Birdwatcher. "Workable" might mean that "Anhinga can
be made to work, but Birdwatcher does it better". "Workable" might
refer simply to the handiness of the rig compared to
Birdwatcher. "Workable" might mean she won't necessarily drown you.
===================================================================
There's another layer to "Anhinga" too. The issue at hand. I think
the way her neutrally bouyant water ballast is deployed has some
interesting properties, especially when singlehanding. As the flat,
shallow, pointed stern can float ballast abaft amidships, then the
ballast is not centrally located, more or less, as is usual in a
hull. Further, the hull doesn't have the Centre Of Bouyancy much
abaft amidships where the widest beam often is, but instead as the
hull is nearly symetrical fore and aft about the rough midpoint
where bulkhead "D" is located then _the water ballast centre of
gravity is considerably aft of the hull centre of bouyancy._ By
placing the ships stores forward in the cabin the composite centre
of gravity for the whole boat will coincide with the centre of
bouyancy and she will float properly trimmed level, but notice that
in this attitude the water ballast is neutrally bouyant. Unlike
solid ballast down low it won't contribute to stability or stiffness
in level trim, but only to momentum.
However, as the hull heels and the water ballast on the weather side
is lifted from the surrounding water it then begins to have an
effect in resisting heel. Wonderfully, the more she heels, lifting
the windward ballast above the waterline, then the more effective
ballast weight is increased. For a singlehander it would be like
suddenly having more crew hop from somewhere into the boat onto the
weather bench beside them as needed to resist heeling. Further, the
increasing effective weather side ballast not only opposes heeling,
but minimises crankiness by also lifting the bow as the sail is
pressed more, for the narrrow stern lacks the bouyancy in the
quarters that would tip the bow down as heeling proceeds.
So, as winds and associated waves increase, the heeling and positive
pitching moment of the sail is resisted increasingly by the the
ballast, and the bow is lifted to slice through the waves. This
looks good from beating to broad reaching, and may be handy for
light weight crew. Of course, as the bow is raised the stern is
dipped and so the shoal rudder people worry about operates more
effectively in deeper less disturbed water.
I am concerned that this heeling and negative pitching may in the
end have the lee quarter submerged with the ensuing flooding of the
cockpit. If she goes over onto her side the cockpit will flood, yet
if all else is equal the ballast should right her and some cockpit
bailing is all that will be needed. _ But,_ in that beam ends
position the ventilation exhausts and the rear bulckhead lower door
side will possibly be immersed by the ballast aft of the COB causing
negative pitching sufficient to put the stern well down and the bow
up. This may allow very rapid cabin flooding through the
ventilation passages. She will likely become unmanageable.
Perhaps the Martha Jane sponsons mod is called for? The Martha Jane
has a transom stern so her quarters already contributed to that
boat's ability to stand up to sail, yet she suffered similarly until
the revision. It is no disgrace at all if Anhinga is challenged
similarly. I think it's unfortunate though that a price will be paid
by lessening the aesthetic response to her lines when viewed from
aft. Some relatively lightly ballasted leeboards, akin to those of
Centennial ll, may be helpful for outside work too.
Graeme
The peculiarities of _water_ ballast and the _placement_ in Anhinga
most likely (I haven't done the numbers) cause some "interesting"
effects. The "apparent" Centre Of Gravity of the ballast shifts
athwartships as below waterline water ballast can do. However, how
much will she pitch with any kind of ballast centred where it is,
and is the stern sufficiently bouyant to float those aft openings
clear above water when she does?
Bottom line is: I think corrections like bouyant aft gained from
high, wedgey, stub winged shaped sponsons like on the revised Martha
Jane wouldn't go with the look (maybe with lot's of chrome like car
tail fins of the fifties?). Other fixes can be made, probably with
loss of some designed function or other, but the aesthetic could
probably be preserved.
I see at the message bottom that there are now 71 messages for this
topic. I went through this new yahoo feature and got a bit of info
but most of it has been mentioned more recently, or is actually off
topic. Searching <Anhinga> returns 193 hits. I haven't gone back
very far into them, but would be willing to bet most are also off
topic.
Anyway, a few months ago I finally got what I think might be a small
insight into what the whole Anhinga thing is about, and some
crystalisation of the issues that go with it; I'll take a risk on
being shot down. I posted 'Anhinga (or Rubens) by Numbers #50267'
after reading PCB's Burgandy comparison (and being flush with his
witty analogy after a good read). I meant to do the actual numbers,
at least a few static ones sufficient to generate a stability curve,
but life and an unstable computer pushed that aside. I wasn't in a
hurry anyway as I thought the boat was a bit too big a project for
me at the time.
===================================================================
Anhinga by Numbers (maybe).
Joseph Gribbens, in his PCB biography, wrote "Bolger is inspired by
thoughts of boats that will be pure and perfect, but unbothered - so
he says - by boats that incorporate the "crude solutions" he
cheerfully admits in a lot of his own work. "Some boats are better
than others; but it's not important that they be better," he says in
a conversation about the uses to which various types are put. He
means (by) this "any sort of boat will do" in the general sense that
a boat roughly suitable to its purpose can achieve its purpose, and
in the social sense that it's good for people to enjoy themselves on
the water whatever they're in, so long as they don't get drowned."
(Nautical Quarterly 21, Spring 1983)
http://hallman.org/bolger/BolgerBio.htmlBefore looking at
the "refined" Anhinga take a look at a "crude solution" that could
make you scream: "Eeek!" .
PCB said that he had an idea to build a seagoing sharpie with a
pointed stern without rocker that would allow more ballast to be
carried without increasing the size of the midsection. That is,
increase stiffness, stability, and momentum without increasing draft
or LWB, and so, I guess, have better lines, L/B, performance, and
economy of materials. He designed, and had Eeek! built on a smaller
scale as a test for possible vices of this model. PCB wrote the
cruising canoe Eeek! "sails and handles quite well.", also that he
didn't dispose of her quickly but used her extensively for _three_
seasons. He doesn't mention whether any vices were found from the
test other than the canoe crew was unable to lean against heel, nor
satisfactorily use a double paddle due to the high sides, but these
vices are not relevant to the larger seagoing sharpie.
Now, he wrote me that "Eeek!" was not much of a boat, and offered
the "Peero" plan. _But, what does he mean by not much of a boat?_
What does he mean, what's the context? This perhaps requires some
consideration as he has already published that Eeek! sails and
handles quite well.
1) Eeek! and Peero are the same length and beam and clearly the
lower sides of Peero make it easier for crew to lean against heel,
and to use a double paddle. But PCB successfully used a single
paddle and the ballast in Eeek! made for stiffness and rendered her
able to be reboarded without outrigging floats. The sides of Eeek!
could be cut down if double paddling were important.
2) Perhaps the pivoting foils on Peero make her better, but they
could be easily put on Eeek!
3) Perhaps the gaff rig on Peero is easier furled, and crew wouldn't
capsize one out of five times when trying, but it could be put on
Eeek!
4) Perhaps the tack and tape construction is better on Peero, but
Eeek! could be easily built this way too.
5) On the other hand, Peero wouldn't benefit from the ballast
feature of Eeek! and as Peero builders have declared her tippy I'd
sooner stand in Eeek! than Peero. And the sail, or a bug net can be
stretched over the cockpit of Eeek! making a snug camping shelter.
I think that by "not much of a boat" PCB means perhaps that for a
stock plan for a little sailing canoe Peero already has the above
features, and he is unwilling to take the time to do a revised plan
having these features for Eeek! I don't think he is refering to the
pointed stern, nil rocker, and ballasted form of the model as
rendering her a "not-much-of-a-boat", or dog. Eeek! was plan #407,
and the big seagoing sharpie remained a proposal, for some reason.
I wrote PCB in part about Anhinga. PCB agreed that Anhinga
was "aesthetically pleasing". He said, importantly, that she
was "workable". He said that she was made "technically obsolete"
by "Birdwatcher". So - she is workable; and as for beauty, if
#384 "Burgandy" is PCB's Playboy centrefold rendition of L F
Herroshoff's original Rubens "Rozinante", then #484 "Anhinga" is a
hundred better.
PCB's response is interesting, if short. _What does he mean
by "workable", and "made technically obsolete by Birdwatcher"?
What's the context? If looked at for what a Birdwatcher might do
then Birdwatcher does those things either as well or better, but
Anhinga should have some capabilities that Birdwatcher simply does
not have. If looked at in that way Anhinga is not made "technically
obsolescent" by Birdwatcher. "Workable" might mean that "Anhinga can
be made to work, but Birdwatcher does it better". "Workable" might
refer simply to the handiness of the rig compared to
Birdwatcher. "Workable" might mean she won't necessarily drown you.
===================================================================
There's another layer to "Anhinga" too. The issue at hand. I think
the way her neutrally bouyant water ballast is deployed has some
interesting properties, especially when singlehanding. As the flat,
shallow, pointed stern can float ballast abaft amidships, then the
ballast is not centrally located, more or less, as is usual in a
hull. Further, the hull doesn't have the Centre Of Bouyancy much
abaft amidships where the widest beam often is, but instead as the
hull is nearly symetrical fore and aft about the rough midpoint
where bulkhead "D" is located then _the water ballast centre of
gravity is considerably aft of the hull centre of bouyancy._ By
placing the ships stores forward in the cabin the composite centre
of gravity for the whole boat will coincide with the centre of
bouyancy and she will float properly trimmed level, but notice that
in this attitude the water ballast is neutrally bouyant. Unlike
solid ballast down low it won't contribute to stability or stiffness
in level trim, but only to momentum.
However, as the hull heels and the water ballast on the weather side
is lifted from the surrounding water it then begins to have an
effect in resisting heel. Wonderfully, the more she heels, lifting
the windward ballast above the waterline, then the more effective
ballast weight is increased. For a singlehander it would be like
suddenly having more crew hop from somewhere into the boat onto the
weather bench beside them as needed to resist heeling. Further, the
increasing effective weather side ballast not only opposes heeling,
but minimises crankiness by also lifting the bow as the sail is
pressed more, for the narrrow stern lacks the bouyancy in the
quarters that would tip the bow down as heeling proceeds.
So, as winds and associated waves increase, the heeling and positive
pitching moment of the sail is resisted increasingly by the the
ballast, and the bow is lifted to slice through the waves. This
looks good from beating to broad reaching, and may be handy for
light weight crew. Of course, as the bow is raised the stern is
dipped and so the shoal rudder people worry about operates more
effectively in deeper less disturbed water.
I am concerned that this heeling and negative pitching may in the
end have the lee quarter submerged with the ensuing flooding of the
cockpit. If she goes over onto her side the cockpit will flood, yet
if all else is equal the ballast should right her and some cockpit
bailing is all that will be needed. _ But,_ in that beam ends
position the ventilation exhausts and the rear bulckhead lower door
side will possibly be immersed by the ballast aft of the COB causing
negative pitching sufficient to put the stern well down and the bow
up. This may allow very rapid cabin flooding through the
ventilation passages. She will likely become unmanageable.
Perhaps the Martha Jane sponsons mod is called for? The Martha Jane
has a transom stern so her quarters already contributed to that
boat's ability to stand up to sail, yet she suffered similarly until
the revision. It is no disgrace at all if Anhinga is challenged
similarly. I think it's unfortunate though that a price will be paid
by lessening the aesthetic response to her lines when viewed from
aft. Some relatively lightly ballasted leeboards, akin to those of
Centennial ll, may be helpful for outside work too.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gbship" <gbship@...> wrote:
>
> I recently found the Anhinga study plans in the Bolger Cartoon
files
> section and am semi-captivated; a model is in the works. Does
anyone
> know if one of these was ever built? Obviously it's a development
of
> Eeek in 30-Odd Boats, and the little brother of the ocean-going
design
> in that chapter. It would be a nice boat for poking around the
shallows
> of Florida's Gulf Coast and the Keys. And probably close the the
> largest size that would be practical for an Everglades Challenge.
>
> Gary Blankenship
>
The first mast I used on Bufflehead was a plain 15' windsurfer mast with an
80sf tarp dipping lug sail. In about 15 knots it would bend alarmingly.
Looked like the tip moved 3', though it might have been less. Never broke
but scared me enough to build a stronger mast by sleeving together 3 partial
windsurfer masts that fit together pretty snugly, glued with epoxy, to make
a 16' mast. I've used that with up to 100sf or so in strong winds and it
bent a lot less. Though having the sail impaled on the broken mast is a
possibility, I think maybe the mast is stressed more when the balanced lug
is on the lee side, more like a dipping lug, with most of the pull at the
top of the mast. I've broken a carbon windsurfer mast in the surf, from
wave and water stress, but never just from sailing (windsurfing that is). I
did have an aluminum windsurfer mast break just above the boom with no
warning. But I've never had a sailboat mast break. My guess is there
wouldn't be any warning unless your added carbon started delaminating from
the bending stress. Since windsurfer masts are designed to bend, and not
designed generally to carry 113 sf of sail, they are kind of iffy. If
possible I would get a plug in the partners area, or if you can't do that,
add a lot of glass or carbon there tapered out up and down. Usually the
masts are strong in the boom area, but that is about 5' from the bottom.
When they do break in windsurfing it almost always just above the boom.
I've used unreinforced masts on smaller boats with less sail area, like 45
sf and not worried about them as the boats were not stiff enough to break
the mast. I've been told by a boat designer that if I tried to pull
Bufflehead over by the masthead (as a stability test) I would probably break
the mast before it capsized. Maybe that's a safety feature ;-)
Good luck. Let us know how it works.
Gary L.
80sf tarp dipping lug sail. In about 15 knots it would bend alarmingly.
Looked like the tip moved 3', though it might have been less. Never broke
but scared me enough to build a stronger mast by sleeving together 3 partial
windsurfer masts that fit together pretty snugly, glued with epoxy, to make
a 16' mast. I've used that with up to 100sf or so in strong winds and it
bent a lot less. Though having the sail impaled on the broken mast is a
possibility, I think maybe the mast is stressed more when the balanced lug
is on the lee side, more like a dipping lug, with most of the pull at the
top of the mast. I've broken a carbon windsurfer mast in the surf, from
wave and water stress, but never just from sailing (windsurfing that is). I
did have an aluminum windsurfer mast break just above the boom with no
warning. But I've never had a sailboat mast break. My guess is there
wouldn't be any warning unless your added carbon started delaminating from
the bending stress. Since windsurfer masts are designed to bend, and not
designed generally to carry 113 sf of sail, they are kind of iffy. If
possible I would get a plug in the partners area, or if you can't do that,
add a lot of glass or carbon there tapered out up and down. Usually the
masts are strong in the boom area, but that is about 5' from the bottom.
When they do break in windsurfing it almost always just above the boom.
I've used unreinforced masts on smaller boats with less sail area, like 45
sf and not worried about them as the boats were not stiff enough to break
the mast. I've been told by a boat designer that if I tried to pull
Bufflehead over by the masthead (as a stability test) I would probably break
the mast before it capsized. Maybe that's a safety feature ;-)
Good luck. Let us know how it works.
Gary L.
----- Original Message -----
From: "gbship" <gbship@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 5:21 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Anhinga, plus a carbon mast question
> I'd love to build one, but I've got enough boats -- and boats that I
> like -- for the moment. That's why I'm going to do a model. But Gary,
> I wanted to ask you another question, since you've used old carbon
> fiber windsufer masts for spars on other boats. How hard is it to
> break one? I've got a discarded windsurfer mast to which I added a
> couple additional layers of carbon fiber; it will be a mast on our
> Frolic2 (113 square foot balanced lug sail). It's more flexible than
> the wooden mast (which is what I wanted, but it may still be too
> flexible) but my question is will there be any warning it's about to
> fail or will it just snap? How much will it bend before I should be
> worried? I've only had it out in light to moderate winds, and hope to
> try it when the fall winds pick up. I'm worried about it breaking
> whent he sail is on the tack where it lies agains the mast, and the
> sail getting impaled on the broken mast . . .
>
> Gary Blankenship
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Lepak" <gnjlepak@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gary,
>> Anhinga is a design that has captivated me for years, and on which
> I have
>> sketched many variations. My Bufflehead was partly inspired by it
> and the
>> flat sides and straight sheer are the same, though I limited the
> length to
>> 19'. I knew that trying to sleep at anchor I wouldn't be able
> to stand
>> the slapping under the raised bow though, so went with the Dovekie
> straight
>> rocker to keep the bow a bit down in the water at anchor. The beam
> is the
>> same at 5', which is also the waterline beam of Dovekie. I also
> added the
>> rounded chines of Dovekie. I guess I could describe Bufflehead as
> Dovekie
>> below the water and Anhinga above, (but at 19' loa and lwl, which
> is the lwl
>> of Dovekie.) I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a good
> boat. Build
>> one and let us know. ;-)
>>
>> Gary Lepak
>>
>http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/05/designs/lepak/bufflehead/index.cfm
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "gbship" <gbship@...>
>> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:13 PM
>> Subject: [bolger] Anhinga
>>
>>
>> >I recently found the Anhinga study plans in the Bolger Cartoon
> files
>> > section and am semi-captivated; a model is in the works. Does
> anyone
>> > know if one of these was ever built? Obviously it's a development
> of
>> > Eeek in 30-Odd Boats, and the little brother of the ocean-going
> design
>> > in that chapter. It would be a nice boat for poking around the
> shallows
>> > of Florida's Gulf Coast and the Keys. And probably close the the
>> > largest size that would be practical for an Everglades Challenge.
>> >
>> > Gary Blankenship
>> >
>>
The thing you have to watch out for with any
fiberglass or carbon fiber is point loading.
Deppending on the age of the mast look for checking
and cracks in the epoxy binder I call the epoxy a
binder do to the fact your mast has a very high fiber
content as to epoxy resin. I have also been told that
some mast have a 70% to 30% fiber to resin ratio or
higher.
The epoxy is what brakes down in sunlight not the
carbon fiber.
The thing with any hallow mast is it buckling at a
high load point. A couple of boats that I worked on
that had a free standing mast had a rubber block
around the mast at the top load member of the boat
(cabin top). I'm not sure what was at the keel end of
things but I would think the same kind of setup for
shock loading and flexing of the mast.
I know the mast will bend a long way before it brakes
but when it does there is not a lot of warning.
Adding the layers of carbon fiber to your high load
areas is not a bad idea. But what way are the filments
running to the loads that the mast is going to be
subject to?
Building carbon fiber masts is part art and physics.
I've seen photos of them being made but they didn't
show HOW they set the tows of carbon fiber when laying
up the mast.
I would think your mast should stand up to what you
are planing seeing how most mast have a 5 to 1 safety
factor built into them.
--- gbship <gbship@...> wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
fiberglass or carbon fiber is point loading.
Deppending on the age of the mast look for checking
and cracks in the epoxy binder I call the epoxy a
binder do to the fact your mast has a very high fiber
content as to epoxy resin. I have also been told that
some mast have a 70% to 30% fiber to resin ratio or
higher.
The epoxy is what brakes down in sunlight not the
carbon fiber.
The thing with any hallow mast is it buckling at a
high load point. A couple of boats that I worked on
that had a free standing mast had a rubber block
around the mast at the top load member of the boat
(cabin top). I'm not sure what was at the keel end of
things but I would think the same kind of setup for
shock loading and flexing of the mast.
I know the mast will bend a long way before it brakes
but when it does there is not a lot of warning.
Adding the layers of carbon fiber to your high load
areas is not a bad idea. But what way are the filments
running to the loads that the mast is going to be
subject to?
Building carbon fiber masts is part art and physics.
I've seen photos of them being made but they didn't
show HOW they set the tows of carbon fiber when laying
up the mast.
I would think your mast should stand up to what you
are planing seeing how most mast have a 5 to 1 safety
factor built into them.
--- gbship <gbship@...> wrote:
> I'd love to build one, but I've got enough boats --__________________________________________________
> and boats that I
> like -- for the moment. That's why I'm going to do a
> model. But Gary,
> I wanted to ask you another question, since you've
> used old carbon
> fiber windsufer masts for spars on other boats. How
> hard is it to
> break one? I've got a discarded windsurfer mast to
> which I added a
> couple additional layers of carbon fiber; it will be
> a mast on our
> Frolic2 (113 square foot balanced lug sail). It's
> more flexible than
> the wooden mast (which is what I wanted, but it may
> still be too
> flexible) but my question is will there be any
> warning it's about to
> fail or will it just snap? How much will it bend
> before I should be
> worried? I've only had it out in light to moderate
> winds, and hope to
> try it when the fall winds pick up. I'm worried
> about it breaking
> whent he sail is on the tack where it lies agains
> the mast, and the
> sail getting impaled on the broken mast . . .
>
> Gary Blankenship
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I'd love to build one, but I've got enough boats -- and boats that I
like -- for the moment. That's why I'm going to do a model. But Gary,
I wanted to ask you another question, since you've used old carbon
fiber windsufer masts for spars on other boats. How hard is it to
break one? I've got a discarded windsurfer mast to which I added a
couple additional layers of carbon fiber; it will be a mast on our
Frolic2 (113 square foot balanced lug sail). It's more flexible than
the wooden mast (which is what I wanted, but it may still be too
flexible) but my question is will there be any warning it's about to
fail or will it just snap? How much will it bend before I should be
worried? I've only had it out in light to moderate winds, and hope to
try it when the fall winds pick up. I'm worried about it breaking
whent he sail is on the tack where it lies agains the mast, and the
sail getting impaled on the broken mast . . .
Gary Blankenship
like -- for the moment. That's why I'm going to do a model. But Gary,
I wanted to ask you another question, since you've used old carbon
fiber windsufer masts for spars on other boats. How hard is it to
break one? I've got a discarded windsurfer mast to which I added a
couple additional layers of carbon fiber; it will be a mast on our
Frolic2 (113 square foot balanced lug sail). It's more flexible than
the wooden mast (which is what I wanted, but it may still be too
flexible) but my question is will there be any warning it's about to
fail or will it just snap? How much will it bend before I should be
worried? I've only had it out in light to moderate winds, and hope to
try it when the fall winds pick up. I'm worried about it breaking
whent he sail is on the tack where it lies agains the mast, and the
sail getting impaled on the broken mast . . .
Gary Blankenship
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Lepak" <gnjlepak@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gary,
> Anhinga is a design that has captivated me for years, and on which
I have
> sketched many variations. My Bufflehead was partly inspired by it
and the
> flat sides and straight sheer are the same, though I limited the
length to
> 19'. I knew that trying to sleep at anchor I wouldn't be able
to stand
> the slapping under the raised bow though, so went with the Dovekie
straight
> rocker to keep the bow a bit down in the water at anchor. The beam
is the
> same at 5', which is also the waterline beam of Dovekie. I also
added the
> rounded chines of Dovekie. I guess I could describe Bufflehead as
Dovekie
> below the water and Anhinga above, (but at 19' loa and lwl, which
is the lwl
> of Dovekie.) I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a good
boat. Build
> one and let us know. ;-)
>
> Gary Lepak
>
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/05/designs/lepak/bufflehead/index.cfm
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "gbship" <gbship@...>
> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:13 PM
> Subject: [bolger] Anhinga
>
>
> >I recently found the Anhinga study plans in the Bolger Cartoon
files
> > section and am semi-captivated; a model is in the works. Does
anyone
> > know if one of these was ever built? Obviously it's a development
of
> > Eeek in 30-Odd Boats, and the little brother of the ocean-going
design
> > in that chapter. It would be a nice boat for poking around the
shallows
> > of Florida's Gulf Coast and the Keys. And probably close the the
> > largest size that would be practical for an Everglades Challenge.
> >
> > Gary Blankenship
> >
>
Hi Gary,
Anhinga is a design that has captivated me for years, and on which I have
sketched many variations. My Bufflehead was partly inspired by it and the
flat sides and straight sheer are the same, though I limited the length to
19'. I knew that trying to sleep at anchor I wouldn't be able to stand
the slapping under the raised bow though, so went with the Dovekie straight
rocker to keep the bow a bit down in the water at anchor. The beam is the
same at 5', which is also the waterline beam of Dovekie. I also added the
rounded chines of Dovekie. I guess I could describe Bufflehead as Dovekie
below the water and Anhinga above, (but at 19' loa and lwl, which is the lwl
of Dovekie.) I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a good boat. Build
one and let us know. ;-)
Gary Lepak
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/05/designs/lepak/bufflehead/index.cfm
Anhinga is a design that has captivated me for years, and on which I have
sketched many variations. My Bufflehead was partly inspired by it and the
flat sides and straight sheer are the same, though I limited the length to
19'. I knew that trying to sleep at anchor I wouldn't be able to stand
the slapping under the raised bow though, so went with the Dovekie straight
rocker to keep the bow a bit down in the water at anchor. The beam is the
same at 5', which is also the waterline beam of Dovekie. I also added the
rounded chines of Dovekie. I guess I could describe Bufflehead as Dovekie
below the water and Anhinga above, (but at 19' loa and lwl, which is the lwl
of Dovekie.) I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a good boat. Build
one and let us know. ;-)
Gary Lepak
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/05/designs/lepak/bufflehead/index.cfm
----- Original Message -----
From: "gbship" <gbship@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2006 8:13 PM
Subject: [bolger] Anhinga
>I recently found the Anhinga study plans in the Bolger Cartoon files
> section and am semi-captivated; a model is in the works. Does anyone
> know if one of these was ever built? Obviously it's a development of
> Eeek in 30-Odd Boats, and the little brother of the ocean-going design
> in that chapter. It would be a nice boat for poking around the shallows
> of Florida's Gulf Coast and the Keys. And probably close the the
> largest size that would be practical for an Everglades Challenge.
>
> Gary Blankenship
>
Yes, one, about 20 years ago. 'Soggy Sneakers.' Photo in an old
wooden boat. Built not to spec in that it was turned into a yawl and
had funny steps amidships added off the chines.
Philip Bolger wrote me he couldn't understand how it would have
turned turtle unless the after compartment filled. That event
disappointed the owner and it was later sold. I don't know where it
is now.
There's quite a lot archived in the old messages, including the whole
of his letter, I think.
He suggested that Bird Watcher might be better on the same
requirements but ackkowledged Anhinga's appeal.
There's also a version with a lug rig.
Mark (who never quite had the room for something that big)
wooden boat. Built not to spec in that it was turned into a yawl and
had funny steps amidships added off the chines.
Philip Bolger wrote me he couldn't understand how it would have
turned turtle unless the after compartment filled. That event
disappointed the owner and it was later sold. I don't know where it
is now.
There's quite a lot archived in the old messages, including the whole
of his letter, I think.
He suggested that Bird Watcher might be better on the same
requirements but ackkowledged Anhinga's appeal.
There's also a version with a lug rig.
Mark (who never quite had the room for something that big)
On Oct 14, 2006, at 8:13 PM, gbship wrote:
> I recently found the Anhinga study plans in the Bolger Cartoon files
> section and am semi-captivated; a model is in the works. Does anyone
> know if one of these was ever built? Obviously it's a development of
> Eeek in 30-Odd Boats, and the little brother of the ocean-going design
> in that chapter. It would be a nice boat for poking around the
> shallows
> of Florida's Gulf Coast and the Keys. And probably close the the
> largest size that would be practical for an Everglades Challenge.
>
> Gary Blankenship
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging
> dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred'
> posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
> 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
I recently found the Anhinga study plans in the Bolger Cartoon files
section and am semi-captivated; a model is in the works. Does anyone
know if one of these was ever built? Obviously it's a development of
Eeek in 30-Odd Boats, and the little brother of the ocean-going design
in that chapter. It would be a nice boat for poking around the shallows
of Florida's Gulf Coast and the Keys. And probably close the the
largest size that would be practical for an Everglades Challenge.
Gary Blankenship
section and am semi-captivated; a model is in the works. Does anyone
know if one of these was ever built? Obviously it's a development of
Eeek in 30-Odd Boats, and the little brother of the ocean-going design
in that chapter. It would be a nice boat for poking around the shallows
of Florida's Gulf Coast and the Keys. And probably close the the
largest size that would be practical for an Everglades Challenge.
Gary Blankenship
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, John Bell wrote:
Springfield, Missouri. It's quite a place (e.g., two restaurants inside,
barbershop, the largest collection of canoes and kayaks I've ever seen,
wild turkeys walking around in displays, etc.).
Chris Crandallcrandall@...(785) 864-4131
Department of Psychology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045
I have data convincingly disconfirming the Duhem-Quine hypothesis.
> FWIW, the lowest cost outlet I've found for Merc outboards is Bass ProIf he wants to drive a bit, the mother of all Bass Pro Shops is in
> Shops. We've got one of those mega-acre-super-stores near my home that
> quotes their motors for hundreds less than the competition. Don't know
> if BPS is near you anywhere in CO, though.
Springfield, Missouri. It's quite a place (e.g., two restaurants inside,
barbershop, the largest collection of canoes and kayaks I've ever seen,
wild turkeys walking around in displays, etc.).
Chris Crandallcrandall@...(785) 864-4131
Department of Psychology University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66045
I have data convincingly disconfirming the Duhem-Quine hypothesis.
I don't know anything about outdrives but I saved this a long time ago because it looked simple.
dbdmarine.com, Clyde
timothyennuinet wrote:
dbdmarine.com, Clyde
timothyennuinet wrote:
> --- In bolger@y..., "vexatious2001" <cadbury@s...> wrote:
> > I would really like to know where you plan to get this
> > outdrive that will handle the torque of a 200 hp diesel
> > for "a grand or two."
> >
>
> You're probably right about the price of the outdrive being high for a
> 200HP engine.. I was thinking of the one out of a UK company, but that
> was intended for a 50hp diesel.
--- In bolger@y..., "vexatious2001" <cadbury@s...> wrote:
200HP engine.. I was thinking of the one out of a UK company, but that
was intended for a 50hp diesel.
But.. even if the OutDrive cost 10,000.. the price of 18,000 is still
lower by a wide margin than getting a 200HP marine diesel and et al.
And total cost of ownership will likely be lower, as the only thing
which will gum up consistently is the outdrive. The diesel, as long as
it is kept dry, ventilated and serviced will not hold any surprises
for you.
The outdrive will be easy to maintain as well, given all the parts are
accessible while the boat is in the water. No need to haul out to pack
some grease, or replace a bearing.
I know that people curse their outdrives because of maintenence
headaches and failures, but I also have talked to people who love
them. I don't think outdrives as a species are more of a pain than
other complex systems. They just need lots of care and feeding.
So, you're trading a few hours a week of maintenence (while in
operation) for thousands upon thousands of dollars in cash for a
diesel which you will likely have to maintain at least half as much as
your outdrive. I think it's a fair trade, especially considering
you're getting rid of a huge through-hull fitting in the process.
--T
> I would really like to know where you plan to get thisYou're probably right about the price of the outdrive being high for a
> outdrive that will handle the torque of a 200 hp diesel
> for "a grand or two."
>
200HP engine.. I was thinking of the one out of a UK company, but that
was intended for a 50hp diesel.
But.. even if the OutDrive cost 10,000.. the price of 18,000 is still
lower by a wide margin than getting a 200HP marine diesel and et al.
And total cost of ownership will likely be lower, as the only thing
which will gum up consistently is the outdrive. The diesel, as long as
it is kept dry, ventilated and serviced will not hold any surprises
for you.
The outdrive will be easy to maintain as well, given all the parts are
accessible while the boat is in the water. No need to haul out to pack
some grease, or replace a bearing.
I know that people curse their outdrives because of maintenence
headaches and failures, but I also have talked to people who love
them. I don't think outdrives as a species are more of a pain than
other complex systems. They just need lots of care and feeding.
So, you're trading a few hours a week of maintenence (while in
operation) for thousands upon thousands of dollars in cash for a
diesel which you will likely have to maintain at least half as much as
your outdrive. I think it's a fair trade, especially considering
you're getting rid of a huge through-hull fitting in the process.
--T
--
outdrive that will handle the torque of a 200 hp diesel
for "a grand or two."
Max
> >And
>
> I'd bet you could do better with an industrial diesel I/O setup. The
> complexity is higher, but you have one less through hull, and an
> industrial diesel is MUCH less expensive than a 'Marine' diesel.
>
> When you can get a 200HP engine for 8,000 US, and the outdrive plus
> spare costs another grand or two, you are WAY ahead.. money wise.
> industrial diesels are designed to run forever.I would really like to know where you plan to get this
>
>
outdrive that will handle the torque of a 200 hp diesel
for "a grand or two."
Max
--- In bolger@y..., "Harry W. James" <welshman@p...> wrote:
complexity is higher, but you have one less through hull, and an
industrial diesel is MUCH less expensive than a 'Marine' diesel.
When you can get a 200HP engine for 8,000 US, and the outdrive plus
spare costs another grand or two, you are WAY ahead.. money wise. And
industrial diesels are designed to run forever.
The catch is they are air cooled. But if you design a simple vent
system for the engine room, that shouldn't be a problem. Since the
engine is above the water line, you could exhaust into the water as
well, without fear of comprimise.
If you need an inboard engine, I'd bet you could still use this
concept with a little ingenuity.
And personally, per the advice of some weathered friends, I'd use a
Bus alternator for power generation. :)
> The lodge owner I talked to ran Mercs for financial reasons, it wasn't aI'd bet you could do better with an industrial diesel I/O setup. The
> ford chevy discussion. I was impressed with his discussion, and I was
> surprised that the Mercs won out on cost/longevity.
>
> HJ
>
complexity is higher, but you have one less through hull, and an
industrial diesel is MUCH less expensive than a 'Marine' diesel.
When you can get a 200HP engine for 8,000 US, and the outdrive plus
spare costs another grand or two, you are WAY ahead.. money wise. And
industrial diesels are designed to run forever.
The catch is they are air cooled. But if you design a simple vent
system for the engine room, that shouldn't be a problem. Since the
engine is above the water line, you could exhaust into the water as
well, without fear of comprimise.
If you need an inboard engine, I'd bet you could still use this
concept with a little ingenuity.
And personally, per the advice of some weathered friends, I'd use a
Bus alternator for power generation. :)
> John Bell wrote:seem to
> >
> > Regarding the commercial guys: All the fish camps in W. Ontario
> > lease their motors. What they use (Mercs, usually) may have asmuch or more
> > to do with financing as it does with reliability. Since they onlyuse them
> > for a relatively few months, reliability and serviceability shouldnot be a
> > real big issue. But I could be wrong...
> >
> > JB
> >
> > ---
The lodge owner I talked to ran Mercs for financial reasons, it wasn't a
ford chevy discussion. I was impressed with his discussion, and I was
surprised that the Mercs won out on cost/longevity.
HJ
John Bell wrote:
ford chevy discussion. I was impressed with his discussion, and I was
surprised that the Mercs won out on cost/longevity.
HJ
John Bell wrote:
>
> Regarding the commercial guys: All the fish camps in W. Ontario seem to
> lease their motors. What they use (Mercs, usually) may have as much or more
> to do with financing as it does with reliability. Since they only use them
> for a relatively few months, reliability and serviceability should not be a
> real big issue. But I could be wrong...
>
> JB
>
> ---
Regarding the commercial guys: All the fish camps in W. Ontario seem to
lease their motors. What they use (Mercs, usually) may have as much or more
to do with financing as it does with reliability. Since they only use them
for a relatively few months, reliability and serviceability should not be a
real big issue. But I could be wrong...
JB
lease their motors. What they use (Mercs, usually) may have as much or more
to do with financing as it does with reliability. Since they only use them
for a relatively few months, reliability and serviceability should not be a
real big issue. But I could be wrong...
JB
----- Original Message -----
From: "vexatious2001" <cadbury@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 10:55 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Wyoming, and building cheap.
| --- In bolger@y..., "Harry W. James" <welshman@p...> wrote:
| > What the commercial guys like is usually a clue.
|
|
| I don't agree. I have been involved in commercial marine
| operations for years and never cease to be amazed at how
| little someone who uses outboards in a commercial setting
| can know about them.
|
| It's just like glue; you will get people who like
| this brand and hate that brand, and visa-versa.
--- In bolger@y..., "Harry W. James" <welshman@p...> wrote:
operations for years and never cease to be amazed at how
little someone who uses outboards in a commercial setting
can know about them.
It's just like glue; you will get people who like
this brand and hate that brand, and visa-versa.
and no sales tax.
If you are going to buy (2) engines and remote controls,
you might get a better deal dealing with the "boss" at a small
dealership rather than an employee with a fixxed price list
at a big joint. I don't buy new outboards but i have bought
3 new galvanized boat trailers, all thorugh a little "mom
and pop" dealership, and gotten darn-good deals on them all.
hate 'em.
By the way,on the 4-cycle 50hp, Mercury casts the
cylinder blocks for the Mercuries, mariners, and Yamahas. Yamaha
manufacturers the cylinder heads for all of them, and
Mercury and Yamaha use their own lower units. So as far
as the powerhead goes, there aint much difference between
the three brands. The may be more models that are
"collaberations," but I really don't follow the new
outboards that much.
Also, just for info, the Mercurys of 5 hp and under
are all made by Tohatsu, and all Nissan outboards are made
by Tohatsu. And of course, Tohatsu sells under its own
name as well. Sometimes hard to know just what you're
buying.
If you buy new, be sure to check the warranty, and I
don;t mean the length of term or covered hardware. In the
marine industry, it is not uncommon (unless prohibeted by
state law) for a manufacturer to remiburse a dealer for
warranty labor at a rate less than the stadard labor rate
of the dealer. And it is not unheard of for the dealer
to then charge the motor owner for the amount not reimbursed
by the manufacturer. It seems to come as a shock to a lot
of people that they end up having to fork-over cash for
a "warranty" repair. You might check the manufacturers
policy on this, and your state laws as well.
Max
> What the commercial guys like is usually a clue.I don't agree. I have been involved in commercial marine
operations for years and never cease to be amazed at how
little someone who uses outboards in a commercial setting
can know about them.
It's just like glue; you will get people who like
this brand and hate that brand, and visa-versa.
>150 miles away list them about $500 under retail with free shipping
> Jeff Blunck wrote:
> >
> > Nothing like BPS close around here but the Cabelas outlet store
and no sales tax.
If you are going to buy (2) engines and remote controls,
you might get a better deal dealing with the "boss" at a small
dealership rather than an employee with a fixxed price list
at a big joint. I don't buy new outboards but i have bought
3 new galvanized boat trailers, all thorugh a little "mom
and pop" dealership, and gotten darn-good deals on them all.
> >You will hear from people who love 'em and who
> > Anyone know how reliable the Mercury engines are now days?
hate 'em.
By the way,on the 4-cycle 50hp, Mercury casts the
cylinder blocks for the Mercuries, mariners, and Yamahas. Yamaha
manufacturers the cylinder heads for all of them, and
Mercury and Yamaha use their own lower units. So as far
as the powerhead goes, there aint much difference between
the three brands. The may be more models that are
"collaberations," but I really don't follow the new
outboards that much.
Also, just for info, the Mercurys of 5 hp and under
are all made by Tohatsu, and all Nissan outboards are made
by Tohatsu. And of course, Tohatsu sells under its own
name as well. Sometimes hard to know just what you're
buying.
If you buy new, be sure to check the warranty, and I
don;t mean the length of term or covered hardware. In the
marine industry, it is not uncommon (unless prohibeted by
state law) for a manufacturer to remiburse a dealer for
warranty labor at a rate less than the stadard labor rate
of the dealer. And it is not unheard of for the dealer
to then charge the motor owner for the amount not reimbursed
by the manufacturer. It seems to come as a shock to a lot
of people that they end up having to fork-over cash for
a "warranty" repair. You might check the manufacturers
policy on this, and your state laws as well.
Max
What the commercial guys like is usually a clue. A lodge I stayed at in
Craig this summer had switched to Mercs a couple of years ago and was
very happy with them. Were talking really big motors here though. I was
surprised because I thought they would be using the big Yamaha's but
they like the Mercs better.
HJ
Jeff Blunck wrote:
Craig this summer had switched to Mercs a couple of years ago and was
very happy with them. Were talking really big motors here though. I was
surprised because I thought they would be using the big Yamaha's but
they like the Mercs better.
HJ
Jeff Blunck wrote:
>
> Nothing like BPS close around here but the Cabelas outlet store 150 miles away list them about $500 under retail with free shipping and no sales tax.
>
> Anyone know how reliable the Mercury engines are now days?
>
> Jeff
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
Nothing like BPS close around here but the Cabelas outlet store 150 miles away list them about $500 under retail with free shipping and no sales tax.
Anyone know how reliable the Mercury engines are now days?
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Anyone know how reliable the Mercury engines are now days?
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks David, means a lot. I have no clue where you are in the NE.
I have to say that the wife and I where daydreaming last night and was curious when the Lake Champlain messabout is during the summer. One of my absolute trips I want to take is through that area up to the St Lawrence. In 1975 I visit my little sister in West Point acadamy and I was so impress with up state NY with it's history and beauty I vowed to go back someday.
We are still dreaming at this stage, but what a way to go.....maybe Mr. Bolger would come out to the messabout, meeting him in person would be way cool.....
2005 is our planned start......maybe if I click my heels twice and wish hard......
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I have to say that the wife and I where daydreaming last night and was curious when the Lake Champlain messabout is during the summer. One of my absolute trips I want to take is through that area up to the St Lawrence. In 1975 I visit my little sister in West Point acadamy and I was so impress with up state NY with it's history and beauty I vowed to go back someday.
We are still dreaming at this stage, but what a way to go.....maybe Mr. Bolger would come out to the messabout, meeting him in person would be way cool.....
2005 is our planned start......maybe if I click my heels twice and wish hard......
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jeff ---
If you build this thing and make the proposed voyage you will be my
personal hero!
I'd love to go down to the lake one morning and see that impressive
silhouette out there next to my schooner. Montauk isn't that big a
detour from the ICW.
Keep us posted. I know we all want to see this thing afloat!
YIBB
David
134 West 26th St. 12th Floor
New York, New York 10001
http://www.crumblingempire.com
(212) 247-0296
If you build this thing and make the proposed voyage you will be my
personal hero!
I'd love to go down to the lake one morning and see that impressive
silhouette out there next to my schooner. Montauk isn't that big a
detour from the ICW.
Keep us posted. I know we all want to see this thing afloat!
YIBB
David
>I'm thinking of twin 35 4-cycle Mercury Bigfoots. Total of 70 HPC.E.P.
>but using one most of the time. That will share the work load. PB&F
>thinks that's a sensible idea. Good power and full redundancy on
>the motors.
>
>At 10,000 lbs. the hull speed would be 8 kts and a 35HP would be
>running at 1/2 throttle. Of course that's with no current or wind.
>With 200 gallons on board, 1000 miles between fill ups would be
>possible. Down river a lot further, up river a lot less.
>
>Max speed fully load with the Mercs running 90% power, 15 - 17 Kts
>is realistic. I'd use it at displacement speeds more than anything
>else but being able to almost double her hull speed is attractive to
>help make a schedule or run from weather.
>
>All of her use would be ICW and Rivers. The "Great Circle Route".
>Maybe twice around!
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
>- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
>- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
>- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester,
>MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
134 West 26th St. 12th Floor
New York, New York 10001
http://www.crumblingempire.com
(212) 247-0296
--- In bolger@y..., "John Bell" <jmbell@m...> wrote:
couple of months and already I'm tired
of the
> noise, smell, and vibration of the two stroke.)
>
> JB
>
>
How else are you going to be able to tell if
it's still running?
Noth'n wrong with shiny new 4-stroke outboards, except
that they cost way more than I want to spend on my
toys (or my wife wants me to spend on my toys).
Now, trailers are another matter. I don't think
I will EVER rebuild another old boat trailer...
Max
--- In bolger@y..., "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
subtract $2,500
for ACX.
>
But going cheap as in ACX,
>
>
>
>
> Maybe someone has already mentioned it, but
most ACX plywood is not exterior- it only has an
exposure rating.
Max
FWIW, on the part of my boat that was sheathed, I did not notice any
excessive epoxy soak-up more than I've seen with AC Fir or BC pine. I've
never used okume or meranti, they may take up less. But there's a data point
for you anyway.
Sounds like meranti is the way to go. What distributors are you finding the
best to work with?
JB
excessive epoxy soak-up more than I've seen with AC Fir or BC pine. I've
never used okume or meranti, they may take up less. But there's a data point
for you anyway.
Sounds like meranti is the way to go. What distributors are you finding the
best to work with?
JB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Wyoming, and building cheap.
| Good points on used, I had always planned on new motors. See my previous
post. Also, MDO around here is close to Okume. $65.00 / sheet for 1/2".
Even in Denver it's that price. I can mail order the Okume in for about
$80.00 / sheet and have it delivered to my garage. Maranti delivered for
$45.00. Both are 9 ply.
|
| Maybe I should look around. I understand MDO really wicks up the epoxy.
It may be false economy to use over good Okume at least at my local prices.
|
| Jeff
|
|
| [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
| Bolger rules!!!
| - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
| - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
| - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
| - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
| - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
|
| Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|
|
Our messages must have passed each other.
I like the twin 35 approach, too. Seems like a very reasonable approach.
The Merc 4-strokes seem to represent the most bang for the buck, as far as I
can tell. Their biggest drawback in my estimation is that they are heavier
for a given horsepower rating than a comparable Yamaha. For example the 15
Yammie is 92 lbs, the 15 Merc is 112 lbs. But on a 10,000 lb fifty footer
you won't notice the difference!
FWIW, the lowest cost outlet I've found for Merc outboards is Bass Pro
Shops. We've got one of those mega-acre-super-stores near my home that
quotes their motors for hundreds less than the competition. Don't know if
BPS is near you anywhere in CO, though.
Best,
JB
I like the twin 35 approach, too. Seems like a very reasonable approach.
The Merc 4-strokes seem to represent the most bang for the buck, as far as I
can tell. Their biggest drawback in my estimation is that they are heavier
for a given horsepower rating than a comparable Yamaha. For example the 15
Yammie is 92 lbs, the 15 Merc is 112 lbs. But on a 10,000 lb fifty footer
you won't notice the difference!
FWIW, the lowest cost outlet I've found for Merc outboards is Bass Pro
Shops. We've got one of those mega-acre-super-stores near my home that
quotes their motors for hundreds less than the competition. Don't know if
BPS is near you anywhere in CO, though.
Best,
JB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Wyoming, and building cheap.
| Good points on used, I had always planned on new motors. See my previous
post. Also, MDO around here is close to Okume. $65.00 / sheet for 1/2".
Even in Denver it's that price. I can mail order the Okume in for about
$80.00 / sheet and have it delivered to my garage. Maranti delivered for
$45.00. Both are 9 ply.
|
| Maybe I should look around. I understand MDO really wicks up the epoxy.
It may be false economy to use over good Okume at least at my local prices.
|
| Jeff
|
|
| [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
| Bolger rules!!!
| - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
| - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
| - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
| - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
| - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
|
| Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|
|
Good points on used, I had always planned on new motors. See my previous post. Also, MDO around here is close to Okume. $65.00 / sheet for 1/2". Even in Denver it's that price. I can mail order the Okume in for about $80.00 / sheet and have it delivered to my garage. Maranti delivered for $45.00. Both are 9 ply.
Maybe I should look around. I understand MDO really wicks up the epoxy. It may be false economy to use over good Okume at least at my local prices.
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Maybe I should look around. I understand MDO really wicks up the epoxy. It may be false economy to use over good Okume at least at my local prices.
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Have you thought about MDO? I used it on my last boat and found it very
satisfactory.
For what you are proposing to do though, I suspect used motors would be
false economy. Most used motors are going to be two strokes which are
terrible gas hogs. As far as you want to travel with this boat, the
difference in fuel costs between the two and four stroke motors may more
than cover the extra cost of more expensive motor. Four strokes are also a
lot happier running at low to medium revs compared to two strokes. In any
case I'd look long and hard at the economics. Myself, I'd think really hard
about going with a new 50 horse four.
(As I type this, I'm heading to our local boat show this weekend to try and
wheel and deal my way into a new four stoke motor for my boat. I've only had
the boat one the water for a couple of months and already I'm tired of the
noise, smell, and vibration of the two stroke.)
JB
|But going cheap as in ACX, used motors, cable steering, port-o-let head,
|etc, I think it could be done for $15,000.
|
| Premium grade everthing and I'm sure $35,000 is more like it.
satisfactory.
For what you are proposing to do though, I suspect used motors would be
false economy. Most used motors are going to be two strokes which are
terrible gas hogs. As far as you want to travel with this boat, the
difference in fuel costs between the two and four stroke motors may more
than cover the extra cost of more expensive motor. Four strokes are also a
lot happier running at low to medium revs compared to two strokes. In any
case I'd look long and hard at the economics. Myself, I'd think really hard
about going with a new 50 horse four.
(As I type this, I'm heading to our local boat show this weekend to try and
wheel and deal my way into a new four stoke motor for my boat. I've only had
the boat one the water for a couple of months and already I'm tired of the
noise, smell, and vibration of the two stroke.)
JB
|But going cheap as in ACX, used motors, cable steering, port-o-let head,
|etc, I think it could be done for $15,000.
|
| Premium grade everthing and I'm sure $35,000 is more like it.
I'm thinking of twin 35 4-cycle Mercury Bigfoots. Total of 70 HP but using one most of the time. That will share the work load. PB&F thinks that's a sensible idea. Good power and full redundancy on the motors.
At 10,000 lbs. the hull speed would be 8 kts and a 35HP would be running at 1/2 throttle. Of course that's with no current or wind. With 200 gallons on board, 1000 miles between fill ups would be possible. Down river a lot further, up river a lot less.
Max speed fully load with the Mercs running 90% power, 15 - 17 Kts is realistic. I'd use it at displacement speeds more than anything else but being able to almost double her hull speed is attractive to help make a schedule or run from weather.
All of her use would be ICW and Rivers. The "Great Circle Route". Maybe twice around!
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
At 10,000 lbs. the hull speed would be 8 kts and a 35HP would be running at 1/2 throttle. Of course that's with no current or wind. With 200 gallons on board, 1000 miles between fill ups would be possible. Down river a lot further, up river a lot less.
Max speed fully load with the Mercs running 90% power, 15 - 17 Kts is realistic. I'd use it at displacement speeds more than anything else but being able to almost double her hull speed is attractive to help make a schedule or run from weather.
All of her use would be ICW and Rivers. The "Great Circle Route". Maybe twice around!
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jeff --
I'm very excited at the prospect of following your adventure through
this project. A couple more questions.
1) How big a motor are you a gunna put on this thang? How fast you
think that'll push her?
2) Where are you doing your boatin?
-D
134 West 26th St. 12th Floor
New York, New York 10001
http://www.crumblingempire.com
(212) 247-0296
I'm very excited at the prospect of following your adventure through
this project. A couple more questions.
1) How big a motor are you a gunna put on this thang? How fast you
think that'll push her?
2) Where are you doing your boatin?
-D
>What experience I have with Okume/Maranti is minimal but I wouldC.E.P.
>have to say that it is easier to work with, seems to take less epoxy
>than Fir or Pine and requires a lot less sanding and finishing too
>since it starts out very smooth.
>
>I won't do any epoxy coating on the inside. I prefer George
>Buehlers idea of having good air flow and checking the hidden spaces
>twice a year and douse any rot that may be started liberally with
>preservative. With care and painting once a year whether it needs
>it or not, it'll last a good deal longer than 10 years.
>
>With Maranti ply and fir 1 1/2 stock, I think the hull can be
>assembled for 8K or 9K. Add another $2,000 for Okume, subtract
>$2,500 for ACX.
>
>Of course we all know that the wood and epoxy is the cheap part of
>building a big boat. Motors, transportation, plumbing, electrical,
>etc........adds up to a whole lot more. But going cheap as in ACX,
>used motors, cable steering, port-o-let head, etc, I think it could
>be done for $15,000.
>
>Premium grade everthing and I'm sure $35,000 is more like it.
>
>Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
>- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
>- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
>- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester,
>MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
>- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
134 West 26th St. 12th Floor
New York, New York 10001
http://www.crumblingempire.com
(212) 247-0296
What experience I have with Okume/Maranti is minimal but I would have to say that it is easier to work with, seems to take less epoxy than Fir or Pine and requires a lot less sanding and finishing too since it starts out very smooth.
I won't do any epoxy coating on the inside. I prefer George Buehlers idea of having good air flow and checking the hidden spaces twice a year and douse any rot that may be started liberally with preservative. With care and painting once a year whether it needs it or not, it'll last a good deal longer than 10 years.
With Maranti ply and fir 1 1/2 stock, I think the hull can be assembled for 8K or 9K. Add another $2,000 for Okume, subtract $2,500 for ACX.
Of course we all know that the wood and epoxy is the cheap part of building a big boat. Motors, transportation, plumbing, electrical, etc........adds up to a whole lot more. But going cheap as in ACX, used motors, cable steering, port-o-let head, etc, I think it could be done for $15,000.
Premium grade everthing and I'm sure $35,000 is more like it.
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I won't do any epoxy coating on the inside. I prefer George Buehlers idea of having good air flow and checking the hidden spaces twice a year and douse any rot that may be started liberally with preservative. With care and painting once a year whether it needs it or not, it'll last a good deal longer than 10 years.
With Maranti ply and fir 1 1/2 stock, I think the hull can be assembled for 8K or 9K. Add another $2,000 for Okume, subtract $2,500 for ACX.
Of course we all know that the wood and epoxy is the cheap part of building a big boat. Motors, transportation, plumbing, electrical, etc........adds up to a whole lot more. But going cheap as in ACX, used motors, cable steering, port-o-let head, etc, I think it could be done for $15,000.
Premium grade everthing and I'm sure $35,000 is more like it.
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
That reminds me of aborol, which is some kind of milk
or casein resin tha is sort of an earlier resin
sealant. Her in Can. epoxy is still pricy, but in US,
Epoxy might be cheapper per gallon than some paint!
______________________________________________________
Send your holiday cheer withhttp://greetings.yahoo.ca
or casein resin tha is sort of an earlier resin
sealant. Her in Can. epoxy is still pricy, but in US,
Epoxy might be cheapper per gallon than some paint!
______________________________________________________
Send your holiday cheer withhttp://greetings.yahoo.ca
--- In bolger@y..., thomas dalzell <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
year life you could justify the use of el cheapo CDX plywood fastened
with conventional airgun nails and staples. I also think that a lot
[perhaps all] of the epoxy/glass could be replaced by surplus drapery
fabric remnants embedded and coated with standard oil based house
paint bought wholesale.
With a new coat of oil paint every year or two, it might last more
than 10 years. Localized rot spots could be treated with GitRot
and/or reinforced or replaced as needed as ongoing maintenance. You
also could use some conventional "green / ground contact rating"
treated plywood and lumber in some of the more sensitive areas
subject to rotting.
Inside plywood could be finished brite with concoction of equal parts
Turpentine, Linseed Oil, and Varnish which I have used for years
making furniture. It penetrates well and seals too.
Wooden boats have been sucessfully made lots longer than fiberglass
and resin have existed. I recall reading somewhere that embedding
fabric in oil paint used to be common practice. Drapery remnants are
very cheap, and oil paint isn't all that expensive either.
As an experement a few months back I used ripped up strips of a old
dress shirt and left over latex house paint instead of fiberglass and
resin to tape the seams of the flotation chambers which I built in my
Roar. These seams appear plenty tight and sturdy now several months
later.
> What is the best way to build these boxes cheaply?I think that if you view the boat as a disposable thing with a 10
year life you could justify the use of el cheapo CDX plywood fastened
with conventional airgun nails and staples. I also think that a lot
[perhaps all] of the epoxy/glass could be replaced by surplus drapery
fabric remnants embedded and coated with standard oil based house
paint bought wholesale.
With a new coat of oil paint every year or two, it might last more
than 10 years. Localized rot spots could be treated with GitRot
and/or reinforced or replaced as needed as ongoing maintenance. You
also could use some conventional "green / ground contact rating"
treated plywood and lumber in some of the more sensitive areas
subject to rotting.
Inside plywood could be finished brite with concoction of equal parts
Turpentine, Linseed Oil, and Varnish which I have used for years
making furniture. It penetrates well and seals too.
Wooden boats have been sucessfully made lots longer than fiberglass
and resin have existed. I recall reading somewhere that embedding
fabric in oil paint used to be common practice. Drapery remnants are
very cheap, and oil paint isn't all that expensive either.
As an experement a few months back I used ripped up strips of a old
dress shirt and left over latex house paint instead of fiberglass and
resin to tape the seams of the flotation chambers which I built in my
Roar. These seams appear plenty tight and sturdy now several months
later.
> "in one day under rather unusual circumstances."I believe that the one-day-construction comment is based on the
building of the Nancy Jack, a proof of concept boat for the proposed
ocean ark Margaret Mead. The Nancy Jack was a sort of huge Teal, 50'
x 9', square rigged, and with enough unusual features in rig, lateral
plane, and rudder to justify the experiment. The naked hull was,
according to legend, assembled in one day by "a large crew all of
whom knew what to do." Total construction time was given at 3 weeks.
The boat was admitted to be flimsy. From what I could see in the
drawing in Different Boats (from which most of my info comes), she
had almost no interior framming at all, which would certainly lead to
flimsiness.
I would not go so far as to say that it was irresponsible of Bolger
to mention this as illustration that the hulls of his 'state' series
of powerboats could be built very quickly, but I do think that the
comparison is forced. A builder of one of the powerboats would have
much more interior framing to fit, would have a lot of area to
finish, etc.
Peter
> likely to end up with in durability? Would PL bewhat about plastic nails or staples left in?
> better, what about ring shanks, vs drywall screws (the
> former left in, the latter pulled)
da
O.K PCB says she can be built:
"in one day under rather unusual circumstances."
That does sound good, anyone know what circumstances
where involved?
On a related issue, there are few things in life,
possibly other than love, that can't be made better
with epoxy. Having said that, assuming little or no
resale, but 10 years plus use, without excesive
maintenance what is the best way to build these boxes
cheaply? In the end I end up draggin myself into full
encapsulation, which nocks a lot of the cheap out of
these boats.
They can't be built cheaply in my neck of the woods
with marine grade ply. Using Home Depot fir or
whatever looks nicer in adjacent shops, epoxy to glue
timbers and butts, and latex all over, what are we
likely to end up with in durability? Would PL be
better, what about ring shanks, vs drywall screws (the
former left in, the latter pulled)
______________________________________________________
Send your holiday cheer withhttp://greetings.yahoo.ca
"in one day under rather unusual circumstances."
That does sound good, anyone know what circumstances
where involved?
On a related issue, there are few things in life,
possibly other than love, that can't be made better
with epoxy. Having said that, assuming little or no
resale, but 10 years plus use, without excesive
maintenance what is the best way to build these boxes
cheaply? In the end I end up draggin myself into full
encapsulation, which nocks a lot of the cheap out of
these boats.
They can't be built cheaply in my neck of the woods
with marine grade ply. Using Home Depot fir or
whatever looks nicer in adjacent shops, epoxy to glue
timbers and butts, and latex all over, what are we
likely to end up with in durability? Would PL be
better, what about ring shanks, vs drywall screws (the
former left in, the latter pulled)
______________________________________________________
Send your holiday cheer withhttp://greetings.yahoo.ca
The center of lateral resistance seems also quite far aft.
Shouldn't skimp the leeboard. ( A larger rudder will move it
further. )
Mark
Shouldn't skimp the leeboard. ( A larger rudder will move it
further. )
Mark
Interesting.
As I said, the 3/8# ply would add only a little
weight, I think I calculated 300#, and of course a
little boyancy also. It won't solve the "problem".
My prescription there is to go the 3/8" route, and
calculate all the weights, imcluding live and gear
weights, and see where we are in relation to the
optimum displacement, and make any other required
changes on that basis. Another option might be
longer, devided, water tanks, but that would involve
straying a little from the design.
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
'Displacement Redoo'<BR>
<BR>
Put Anhinga's lines in Hull Designer. Besides
enabling<BR>
greater precision over Plyboats, it taught me
something by<BR>
giving a different set of returns on Anhinga's
static<BR>
righting moment.<BR>
<BR>
The 2400 lb boat came back the same 1450 ft. lb
torque. The<BR>
lighter, 1500 pound boat, isn't nearly so close
anymore at<BR>
975 ft. lb. Crudely, adding about half again the
weight<BR>
resulted in about half again the added righting force.
Again<BR>
though, it's an underestimate because of the zero
ballast condition.<BR>
<BR>
Built in 3/8ths and ready to roam, Thomas, a 1799
pound<BR>
Anhinga has 1153 ft. lb, still pretty close to a
1/4" one;<BR>
yet say a helpful 20% improvement.<BR>
<BR>
BTW the boat's prismatic coefficient is .62. The D/L's
about<BR>
a hundred. Call mine 'Slipper.'<BR>
Hull's three files are in the Anhinga folder at
Bolger2.<BR>
<BR>
Thank you GHC.<BR>
<BR>
Mark<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacaaing=0>
<tr>
<td align=center><font face=arial
size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.1681224.3270152.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=879171/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-57f"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/fa/fastweb/300x250.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td>
</tr>
</table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=178320.1681224.3270152.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=879171/rand=581730531"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt>
Bolger rules!!!<BR>
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
dead horses<BR>
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on
topic, and punctuate<BR>
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts,
snip all you like<BR>
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>
- Unsubscribe:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
As I said, the 3/8# ply would add only a little
weight, I think I calculated 300#, and of course a
little boyancy also. It won't solve the "problem".
My prescription there is to go the 3/8" route, and
calculate all the weights, imcluding live and gear
weights, and see where we are in relation to the
optimum displacement, and make any other required
changes on that basis. Another option might be
longer, devided, water tanks, but that would involve
straying a little from the design.
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
'Displacement Redoo'<BR>
<BR>
Put Anhinga's lines in Hull Designer. Besides
enabling<BR>
greater precision over Plyboats, it taught me
something by<BR>
giving a different set of returns on Anhinga's
static<BR>
righting moment.<BR>
<BR>
The 2400 lb boat came back the same 1450 ft. lb
torque. The<BR>
lighter, 1500 pound boat, isn't nearly so close
anymore at<BR>
975 ft. lb. Crudely, adding about half again the
weight<BR>
resulted in about half again the added righting force.
Again<BR>
though, it's an underestimate because of the zero
ballast condition.<BR>
<BR>
Built in 3/8ths and ready to roam, Thomas, a 1799
pound<BR>
Anhinga has 1153 ft. lb, still pretty close to a
1/4" one;<BR>
yet say a helpful 20% improvement.<BR>
<BR>
BTW the boat's prismatic coefficient is .62. The D/L's
about<BR>
a hundred. Call mine 'Slipper.'<BR>
Hull's three files are in the Anhinga folder at
Bolger2.<BR>
<BR>
Thank you GHC.<BR>
<BR>
Mark<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacaaing=0>
<tr>
<td align=center><font face=arial
size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=178320.1681224.3270152.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=879171/R=0/*http://www.fastweb.com/ib/yahoo-57f"><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/fa/fastweb/300x250.gif"
![http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/fa/fastweb/300x250.gif"](http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/fa/fastweb/300x250.gif"){kind=link}
alt="" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td>
</tr>
</table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=178320.1681224.3270152.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=879171/rand=581730531"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt>
Bolger rules!!!<BR>
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
dead horses<BR>
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on
topic, and punctuate<BR>
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts,
snip all you like<BR>
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>
- Unsubscribe:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
'Displacement Redoo'
Put Anhinga's lines in Hull Designer. Besides enabling
greater precision over Plyboats, it taught me something by
giving a different set of returns on Anhinga's static
righting moment.
The 2400 lb boat came back the same 1450 ft. lb torque. The
lighter, 1500 pound boat, isn't nearly so close anymore at
975 ft. lb. Crudely, adding about half again the weight
resulted in about half again the added righting force. Again
though, it's an underestimate because of the zero ballast condition.
Built in 3/8ths and ready to roam, Thomas, a 1799 pound
Anhinga has 1153 ft. lb, still pretty close to a 1/4" one;
yet say a helpful 20% improvement.
BTW the boat's prismatic coefficient is .62. The D/L's about
a hundred. Call mine 'Slipper.'
Hull's three files are in the Anhinga folder at Bolger2.
Thank you GHC.
Mark
Put Anhinga's lines in Hull Designer. Besides enabling
greater precision over Plyboats, it taught me something by
giving a different set of returns on Anhinga's static
righting moment.
The 2400 lb boat came back the same 1450 ft. lb torque. The
lighter, 1500 pound boat, isn't nearly so close anymore at
975 ft. lb. Crudely, adding about half again the weight
resulted in about half again the added righting force. Again
though, it's an underestimate because of the zero ballast condition.
Built in 3/8ths and ready to roam, Thomas, a 1799 pound
Anhinga has 1153 ft. lb, still pretty close to a 1/4" one;
yet say a helpful 20% improvement.
BTW the boat's prismatic coefficient is .62. The D/L's about
a hundred. Call mine 'Slipper.'
Hull's three files are in the Anhinga folder at Bolger2.
Thank you GHC.
Mark
SOW'S EAR, CUDDY POWERBOAT, 15,5' X 6', 600 POUNDS EMPTY
Take a look at this at JM's new index,
http://homepages.apci.net/~michalak/#Sow'sEar
Take a look at this at JM's new index,
http://homepages.apci.net/~michalak/#Sow'sEar
Anyone want to trade unused Micro for unused AS19
plans?
Thomas
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
plans?
Thomas
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
I hear you on that, mark. At first I wondered "so how
do I loose all but one chine". For Fat EEk, I am just
going to eyeball the changes. I don't see a way to
enter them accurately. One thing I noticed about
plyboats is that the designs don't look all that fair.
I have only made one from "plans" drawn on plyboats,
and the curves were beautiful. I can only imagine the
difference is the way it represents on a screen, with
all those brickmolds.
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
do I loose all but one chine". For Fat EEk, I am just
going to eyeball the changes. I don't see a way to
enter them accurately. One thing I noticed about
plyboats is that the designs don't look all that fair.
I have only made one from "plans" drawn on plyboats,
and the curves were beautiful. I can only imagine the
difference is the way it represents on a screen, with
all those brickmolds.
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Hi, Thomas. Good to hear from you.
I'd never done it before and would have been easier to key
in a real life offset table. Getting upper and lower chines
and keel in line on all the little dialogs is a job. At
first the sections were these shocking 5 x zero foot
triangles. Later, I messed with all all the spline factors
to have the curves right.
seems to match quite well. The profile might be a tad short
aft. When the 7" waterline came up at 2264 pounds, I thought
it must be close enough. I'm going to try again in Hull
Designer. The 5 stations it wants to use will be just right.
Which is too bad
up to 14- 16 feet?
the boat architecturally, the all up 1525 and 2264 pound
Anhingas are pretty much the same.
Did Sandy Bottoms have a short and snappy, or a long and
scary roll time?
a crew of 4 (800) and about 300# of gear to get to 2400?
Since 1/4" is an option from PCB, the 1500 pounder's 5"
draft is in the range. I think you should consider the 2400
pounds to be the absolute maximum.
Eeek. Using it was the whole point of the exercise. There
are other reasons to go 3/8ths, if the design accommodates.
This does. My little experiment with Plyboats leaves me
unconvinced that making it that much heavier helps
rotational stability enough to notice. No doubt your boat
will feel more solid.
Bolger swears by those shoal w/ endplate rudders. Despite
thinking he's got things very right all 'round with the boat
in general, I'd be somewhat concerned on that.
you to place the weights properly. They must all assume its
evenly distributed throughout the boat. The theory must be
that If you assume the weight in the real boat is
concentrated more or less away from the very ends, and with
ballast low down, then the program will safely
underestimate the moments rather than lead too far astray."
I envy your adventure in the sawdust. I've got so many
conflicting requirements and go back and forth about which
boat to build, it makes me feel like back in high school
with all those girls: Which one do you want?
Mark
> Is there a new plyboats? My version just allows youMy v. 2.01 is pretty much the same. It took so long because
> to do multiple chines, and bow stern and widdest
> stations, its about ten minutes to do Anhinga, but I
> think the most recent version I have is 2.0.
I'd never done it before and would have been easier to key
in a real life offset table. Getting upper and lower chines
and keel in line on all the little dialogs is a job. At
first the sections were these shocking 5 x zero foot
triangles. Later, I messed with all all the spline factors
to have the curves right.
>I aimed for rough approximation. Particularly, my plan view
> You can't model this boat in Plyboats 2.0 (I'm not
> questioning what you did, vis a vis the numbers just
> musing) since the fattest point, and the point of
> change for the keel aren't the same.
seems to match quite well. The profile might be a tad short
aft. When the 7" waterline came up at 2264 pounds, I thought
it must be close enough. I'm going to try again in Hull
Designer. The 5 stations it wants to use will be just right.
Which is too bad
> or something as regards Fat Eeek, though theWould you get a better feel about the larger boat by Eeeking
> re-lofting is basically comon sense. I started her
> last night, As it happens I had two sheats of 1/4"
> floating arround.
up to 14- 16 feet?
>I'm only saying that by the measures people use to estimate
> These moments you are refering to they don't take into
> account, if I read you right, the inertia of the
> design. The force in opposition is one thing, the
> rate of roll another.
the boat architecturally, the all up 1525 and 2264 pound
Anhingas are pretty much the same.
Did Sandy Bottoms have a short and snappy, or a long and
scary roll time?
>Anyway, I am just analysingBuilt in 3/8ths (900#) + ballast (435), don't you still need
> what the design should do as it was designed, I am not
> really proposing adding more weight, except as regards
> any weight that might be necesary to bring it to the
> designed displacement range.
a crew of 4 (800) and about 300# of gear to get to 2400?
Since 1/4" is an option from PCB, the 1500 pounder's 5"
draft is in the range. I think you should consider the 2400
pounds to be the absolute maximum.
>If you follow the SBCorrect, it is a package. The ballast wasn't tacked on to
> travails a lot of the stuff seems to be related to
> that. Knockdowns, no stearign input, the light way it
> was built, the possible impact on the water ballast
> condition. And then when he puts enough live weight
> aboard, it tames right down. It just seems prudent to
> me to look at the designed displacement, the likely
> weight when it is put into service, and draw some
> early conclusions as to supplemental ballast, or the
> sellection of plywood to bring it into the design
> range. PCB basicaly did that with Eeek, when he added
> the ballast. Its a package, and depending on the
> service, a particular boat may run light or heavy.
Eeek. Using it was the whole point of the exercise. There
are other reasons to go 3/8ths, if the design accommodates.
This does. My little experiment with Plyboats leaves me
unconvinced that making it that much heavier helps
rotational stability enough to notice. No doubt your boat
will feel more solid.
Bolger swears by those shoal w/ endplate rudders. Despite
thinking he's got things very right all 'round with the boat
in general, I'd be somewhat concerned on that.
>"None of these free and low end boat design programs allow
> Also important to all this is the CG. Where is it?
> Plyboats can't match where it is in to Phil's design,
> and Phil can't know exactly, since it depends on a lot
> of factors that aren't represented on the plans.
you to place the weights properly. They must all assume its
evenly distributed throughout the boat. The theory must be
that If you assume the weight in the real boat is
concentrated more or less away from the very ends, and with
ballast low down, then the program will safely
underestimate the moments rather than lead too far astray."
>****
I envy your adventure in the sawdust. I've got so many
conflicting requirements and go back and forth about which
boat to build, it makes me feel like back in high school
with all those girls: Which one do you want?
Mark
Mark,
Is there a knew plyboats? My version just allows you
to do multiple chines, and bow stern and widdest
stations, its about ten minutes to do Anhinga, but I
think the most recent version I have is 2.0.
You can't model this boat in Plyboats 2.0 (I'm not
questioning what you did, vis a vis the numbers just
musing) since the fattest point, and the point of
change for the keel aren't the same. Which is too bad
or something as regards Fat Eeek, though the
re-lofting is basically comon sense. I started her
last night, As it happens I had two sheats of 1/4"
floating arround.
These moments you are refering to they don't take into
account, if I read you right, the inertia of the
design. The force in opposition is one thing, the
rate of roll another. Anyway, I am just analysing
what the design should do as it was designed, I am not
really proposing adding more weight, except as regards
any weight that might be necesary to bring it to the
designed displacement range. If you follow the SB
travails a lot of the stuff seems to be related to
that. Knockdowns, no stearign input, the light way it
was built, the possible impact on the water ballast
condition. And then when he puts enough live weight
aboard, it tames right down. It just seems prudent to
me to look at the designed displacement, the likely
weight when it is put into service, and draw some
early conclusions as to supplemental ballast, or the
sellection of plywood to bring it into the design
range. PCB basicaly did that with Eeek, when he added
the ballast. Its a package, and depending on the
service, a particular boat may run light or heavy.
It is true with these internally ballasted types, that
as you add ballast they eventually become very
unstable, an overloaded canoe is a good example of
this. The ideal condition I am just assuming is the
design displacement range.
Also important to all this is the CG. Where is it?
Plyboats can't match where it is in to Phil's design,
and Phil can't know exactly, since it depends on a lot
of factors that aren't represented on the plans.
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Is there a knew plyboats? My version just allows you
to do multiple chines, and bow stern and widdest
stations, its about ten minutes to do Anhinga, but I
think the most recent version I have is 2.0.
You can't model this boat in Plyboats 2.0 (I'm not
questioning what you did, vis a vis the numbers just
musing) since the fattest point, and the point of
change for the keel aren't the same. Which is too bad
or something as regards Fat Eeek, though the
re-lofting is basically comon sense. I started her
last night, As it happens I had two sheats of 1/4"
floating arround.
These moments you are refering to they don't take into
account, if I read you right, the inertia of the
design. The force in opposition is one thing, the
rate of roll another. Anyway, I am just analysing
what the design should do as it was designed, I am not
really proposing adding more weight, except as regards
any weight that might be necesary to bring it to the
designed displacement range. If you follow the SB
travails a lot of the stuff seems to be related to
that. Knockdowns, no stearign input, the light way it
was built, the possible impact on the water ballast
condition. And then when he puts enough live weight
aboard, it tames right down. It just seems prudent to
me to look at the designed displacement, the likely
weight when it is put into service, and draw some
early conclusions as to supplemental ballast, or the
sellection of plywood to bring it into the design
range. PCB basicaly did that with Eeek, when he added
the ballast. Its a package, and depending on the
service, a particular boat may run light or heavy.
It is true with these internally ballasted types, that
as you add ballast they eventually become very
unstable, an overloaded canoe is a good example of
this. The ideal condition I am just assuming is the
design displacement range.
Also important to all this is the CG. Where is it?
Plyboats can't match where it is in to Phil's design,
and Phil can't know exactly, since it depends on a lot
of factors that aren't represented on the plans.
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
I'll try to get a scan and send to someone knowledgable in Yahoo, Maybe COD would do it for me. Clyde
Mark Albanese wrote:
Mark Albanese wrote:
> Is there any way we can all see a clip of this boat?
>
> "Clyde S. Wisner" wrote:
> >
> > You might also check "Summer Ease" which I think is about
> > 23ft, with water ballast. Clyde PS, PCB
> > suggested it as much better than trying to adapt my Lily.
> > It was written up in MIAB, but some time
> > ago.
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Oops! Sorry.
The heeled draft of the lighter Anhinga is 12.2"
The table becomes:
#2 Displacement 1525 lb
Level Draft 5"
Heeled draft 12.2"
Righting Moment 1427
Righting Arm 11.228
Force at rail 481
Mark
The heeled draft of the lighter Anhinga is 12.2"
The table becomes:
#2 Displacement 1525 lb
Level Draft 5"
Heeled draft 12.2"
Righting Moment 1427
Righting Arm 11.228
Force at rail 481
Mark
Is there any way we can all see a clip of this boat?
"Clyde S. Wisner" wrote:
"Clyde S. Wisner" wrote:
>
> You might also check "Summer Ease" which I think is about
> 23ft, with water ballast. Clyde PS, PCB
> suggested it as much better than trying to adapt my Lily.
> It was written up in MIAB, but some time
> ago.
It did take about an evening, but I got a modest
representation of #484 into Plyboats. Here's some stability returns.
#1
Displacement 2264 lb
Draft level 7"
Draft heeled 15 deg. 14.445"
Righting Moment 1539 ft. lb.
Righting Arm 8.61"
Force at Rail 519
#2 Displacement 1525 lb
Level Draft 5"
Heeled draft 7"
Righting Moment 1427
Righting Arm 11.228
Force at rail 481
Someone with more experience using these kinds of numbers
might say if this is generally good, bad or indifferent.
But I tentatively conclude that mere weight is not as
important in these boats as shape. Except for a greater
feeling of structural solidity, there's little
difference between the two Anhingas in operation. Must be
because because it has less draft, the lighter boat
actually has the longer righting arm.
There's more on this and another 2000 lb example from Chuck
Merrell in a Duckworks column
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/columns/slogging/07/ballast.htm
This all shows you just can't keep adding ballast to these
sharpies in hopes of creating a better boat.
The question for Anhinga is what the stern does.
I' ll put two bows, then two sterns together and see the
difference, but that's another evening.
Mark
representation of #484 into Plyboats. Here's some stability returns.
#1
Displacement 2264 lb
Draft level 7"
Draft heeled 15 deg. 14.445"
Righting Moment 1539 ft. lb.
Righting Arm 8.61"
Force at Rail 519
#2 Displacement 1525 lb
Level Draft 5"
Heeled draft 7"
Righting Moment 1427
Righting Arm 11.228
Force at rail 481
Someone with more experience using these kinds of numbers
might say if this is generally good, bad or indifferent.
But I tentatively conclude that mere weight is not as
important in these boats as shape. Except for a greater
feeling of structural solidity, there's little
difference between the two Anhingas in operation. Must be
because because it has less draft, the lighter boat
actually has the longer righting arm.
There's more on this and another 2000 lb example from Chuck
Merrell in a Duckworks column
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/columns/slogging/07/ballast.htm
This all shows you just can't keep adding ballast to these
sharpies in hopes of creating a better boat.
The question for Anhinga is what the stern does.
I' ll put two bows, then two sterns together and see the
difference, but that's another evening.
Mark
You might also check "Summer Ease" which I think is about 23ft, with water ballast. ClydePS, PCB
suggested it as much better than trying to adapt my Lily. It was written up in MIAB, but some time
ago.
pvanderw@...wrote:
suggested it as much better than trying to adapt my Lily. It was written up in MIAB, but some time
ago.
pvanderw@...wrote:
> Having an advanced sense of wonderment myself (especially with
> respect to boats), I can appreciate the urge to see if the
> Eek/Anhinga idea really works.
>
> However, if you really only want a sharpie of about that size, you
> might fax PCB to ask how he is feeling about his Otters. They are
> about the same size and accomodation. I know he felt he could improve
> on the first, three masted, Otter, and that the Otter II was not a
> great success as first drawn. But perhaps the bugs have been worked
> out. And was there a rumor about an Otter III?
>
> And did not someone recently build a 20' Wish? Do we have a
> performance review? Oh, and the AS19 - not really a sharpie and not
> really a pram. perhaps a pramie?
>
> Peter
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip all you like
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Thanks for the guidance. I will re-enrol in Elliot's Smallboats U.
John
John
--- In bolger@y..., kayaker37@h... wrote:
> Check out Don Elliots articles on Design Lateral Planes
specifically
> articles 13, 14, 15. These are on his smallboat email group. The
> index is at
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/files/DonsArticles
>
> here is a nice drawing
>
>http://www.tomah.com/delliott/lateral24.jpg
>
> The links are somewhat mislabeled so you may have to search for
them.
>
> Paul
>
> > The Paradox study plans show what look like both internal and
> > external chine logs, and I presume the external ones are 'chine
> > runners'. I also gather that chine runners somehow provide
lateral
> > resistance in place of a keel, centreboard or leeboards. So just
> what
> > are chine runners and how do they work? Anybody?
> >
> > John
Check out Don Elliots articles on Design Lateral Planes specifically
articles 13, 14, 15. These are on his smallboat email group. The
index is at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/files/DonsArticles
here is a nice drawing
http://www.tomah.com/delliott/lateral24.jpg
The links are somewhat mislabeled so you may have to search for them.
Paul
articles 13, 14, 15. These are on his smallboat email group. The
index is at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/files/DonsArticles
here is a nice drawing
http://www.tomah.com/delliott/lateral24.jpg
The links are somewhat mislabeled so you may have to search for them.
Paul
> The Paradox study plans show what look like both internal andwhat
> external chine logs, and I presume the external ones are 'chine
> runners'. I also gather that chine runners somehow provide lateral
> resistance in place of a keel, centreboard or leeboards. So just
> are chine runners and how do they work? Anybody?
>
> John
> Very interesting boat, a little smaller than I'm interested in butThe Paradox study plans show what look like both internal and
> still very intriguing vessel. Here is a web page I found about
> Paradoxhttp://home.triad.rr.com/lcruise/paradox1.htmif you are
> interested.
>
>
> Andy
external chine logs, and I presume the external ones are 'chine
runners'. I also gather that chine runners somehow provide lateral
resistance in place of a keel, centreboard or leeboards. So just what
are chine runners and how do they work? Anybody?
John
--- In bolger@y..., thomas dalzell <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
still very intriguing vessel. Here is a web page I found about
Paradoxhttp://home.triad.rr.com/lcruise/paradox1.htmif you are
interested.
Andy
> Those of you who want to sail from within a cabinVery interesting boat, a little smaller than I'm interested in but
> should also consider the excellent Paradox, that was
> written up in MAIB years ago This boat was well under
> 16'I think 13, and M&M Bolduc, who also sold the plans
> on behalf of the designer (which are excellent),
> cruised her to the Bahamas.
still very intriguing vessel. Here is a web page I found about
Paradoxhttp://home.triad.rr.com/lcruise/paradox1.htmif you are
interested.
Andy
> Another issue that may have affected Sandy Bottoms ishttp://ca.geocities.com
> that if you don't get her down, you not only loose
> stability by virtue of insuficient weight, but you
> loose steering, since the rudder only goes 7" into the
> water for a 23.25' boat, and less if you aren't at the
> design waterline
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Build your own website in minutes and for free at
I remember reading about the BOC(Single Handed Around the World
Racers) boats which use water ballast, however they don't rely on the
initial displacement of the boat to fill the tanks. Some of them have
small electric motors not really suitable for most of us; others have
a forward facing input cock and a vent on top of the tank. Now I have
not seen any of this up close and personal but I think a small right
angle pipe placed well aft so it will not interfere with beaching
would allow the water in a vent on top of the tank will let air out
and tell when the tank is full. Most of the tank would fill based on
displacement you could top it of with the motion of the boat and
isolate the input cock and vent.
Some things that would concern people:
-Run a vent tube to the deck for bottom tanks or side tanks
that do not go all the way to the deck. This will keep the
cabin deck dry.
-If you don't want the small open end of the pipe protruding
from the bottom all the time you could have something
rectractable and fit it just forward of the leeboard perhaps.
-I think a input pipe and cock similar to the ones used for
sea heads would allow alot of water in fast and if you are
moving at a few knots I think you would be surprized at how fast
the tank or tanks would fill.
I think I would give some concederation to changing the rudder design
to one similar to modern dingey, this would put the rudder down deaper
and yet still be able to pop up in shallow water, no different than
your centerboard or leeboard.
Andy
Mea culpa to some degree. The plans do say you can
use 3/8" ply as well as the 1/4". Sandy Bottoms was
1/4", so I was just going by that. That ought to get
a little bit more weight in there.
Another issue that may have affected Sandy Bottoms is
that if you don't get her down, you not only loose
stability by virtue of insuficient weight, but you
loose steering, since the rudder only goes 7" into the
water for a 23.25' boat, and less if you aren't at the
design waterline
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
use 3/8" ply as well as the 1/4". Sandy Bottoms was
1/4", so I was just going by that. That ought to get
a little bit more weight in there.
Another issue that may have affected Sandy Bottoms is
that if you don't get her down, you not only loose
stability by virtue of insuficient weight, but you
loose steering, since the rudder only goes 7" into the
water for a 23.25' boat, and less if you aren't at the
design waterline
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
On Anhinga she isn't a power boat, and the detail
isn't all that weird on a sharpie, it just allows
carrying a little more volume where you will need
it,particularly on a double ender. In practical terms
a lot of really nice canoes have only one inch of
rocker aft, over 16-18', so I don't think one need
worry about how it replaces the water.
---sneakeasy2000@...wrote:
I have read something recently when I was deciding to
build my <BR>
Sneakeasy that spoke to the lack of rocker in the
stern. He was <BR>
referencing the fact that Tennessee has rocker in the
stern but <BR>
Sneakeasy, Idaho, and Wyoming do not, I think in order
to keep the <BR>
bow down at speed and it reduces turbulance at the transom.
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
isn't all that weird on a sharpie, it just allows
carrying a little more volume where you will need
it,particularly on a double ender. In practical terms
a lot of really nice canoes have only one inch of
rocker aft, over 16-18', so I don't think one need
worry about how it replaces the water.
---sneakeasy2000@...wrote:
I have read something recently when I was deciding to
build my <BR>
Sneakeasy that spoke to the lack of rocker in the
stern. He was <BR>
referencing the fact that Tennessee has rocker in the
stern but <BR>
Sneakeasy, Idaho, and Wyoming do not, I think in order
to keep the <BR>
bow down at speed and it reduces turbulance at the transom.
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Hi Phil
I have read something recently when I was deciding to build my
Sneakeasy that spoke to the lack of rocker in the stern. He was
referencing the fact that Tennessee has rocker in the stern but
Sneakeasy, Idaho, and Wyoming do not, I think in order to keep the
bow down at speed and it reduces turbulance at the transom. I may of
read it in Boats with an open mind, I'm not sure
Steve Bosquette
I have read something recently when I was deciding to build my
Sneakeasy that spoke to the lack of rocker in the stern. He was
referencing the fact that Tennessee has rocker in the stern but
Sneakeasy, Idaho, and Wyoming do not, I think in order to keep the
bow down at speed and it reduces turbulance at the transom. I may of
read it in Boats with an open mind, I'm not sure
Steve Bosquette
--- In bolger@y..., phillip_lea@y... wrote:
> Yes, thanks for posting the lines. Hopefully PCB will have a few
> more plan sales. Nice craft!
>
> Will some experienced design folks please comment on the lack of
> rocker on the after bottom. This is quite unlike Windsprint,
> Birdwatcher and some other Bolger designs. Seems like the lack of
> rocker will produce quite a bit of turbulence on the after hull?
> Maybe the drag will keep the bow (the correct pointy end) pointing
> forward! Any thoughts?
>
> Phil Lea
> Russellville, Arkansas
>
> -- Who now has an insulated garage that can be used for epoxy work
> and painting 12 months of the year! That's a great
Thanksgiving!
>
> --- In bolger@y..., thomas dalzell <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
> > Thanks for posting that cartoon. It is so much easier
> > to tell what we are talking about when we have that
> > kind of reference.
Yes, thanks for posting the lines. Hopefully PCB will have a few
more plan sales. Nice craft!
Will some experienced design folks please comment on the lack of
rocker on the after bottom. This is quite unlike Windsprint,
Birdwatcher and some other Bolger designs. Seems like the lack of
rocker will produce quite a bit of turbulence on the after hull?
Maybe the drag will keep the bow (the correct pointy end) pointing
forward! Any thoughts?
Phil Lea
Russellville, Arkansas
-- Who now has an insulated garage that can be used for epoxy work
and painting 12 months of the year! That's a great Thanksgiving!
more plan sales. Nice craft!
Will some experienced design folks please comment on the lack of
rocker on the after bottom. This is quite unlike Windsprint,
Birdwatcher and some other Bolger designs. Seems like the lack of
rocker will produce quite a bit of turbulence on the after hull?
Maybe the drag will keep the bow (the correct pointy end) pointing
forward! Any thoughts?
Phil Lea
Russellville, Arkansas
-- Who now has an insulated garage that can be used for epoxy work
and painting 12 months of the year! That's a great Thanksgiving!
--- In bolger@y..., thomas dalzell <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
> Thanks for posting that cartoon. It is so much easier
> to tell what we are talking about when we have that
> kind of reference.
Thanks for posting that cartoon. It is so much easier
to tell what we are talking about when we have that
kind of reference.
Those of you who want to sail from within a cabin
should also consider the excellent Paradox, that was
written up in MAIB years ago This boat was well under
16'I think 13, and M&M Bolduc, who also sold the plans
on behalf of the designer (which are excellent),
cruised her to the Bahamas.
The progenitor of this kind of thing is hard to place,
but Hassler's Jester comes to mind, along with a lot
of life boats. One option for Anhinga would be to
replace the top segment of the hull with a continuous
lexan, and enclose the cockpit, then she could roll
over hither and yon without appearing old fashioned
about it.
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
to tell what we are talking about when we have that
kind of reference.
Those of you who want to sail from within a cabin
should also consider the excellent Paradox, that was
written up in MAIB years ago This boat was well under
16'I think 13, and M&M Bolduc, who also sold the plans
on behalf of the designer (which are excellent),
cruised her to the Bahamas.
The progenitor of this kind of thing is hard to place,
but Hassler's Jester comes to mind, along with a lot
of life boats. One option for Anhinga would be to
replace the top segment of the hull with a continuous
lexan, and enclose the cockpit, then she could roll
over hither and yon without appearing old fashioned
about it.
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Peter,
Recently the miniature Jochems
Camper #640
18' x 5'3" x 6" gaff cat sharpie with
Birdwatcher cabin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Birdwatcher/Bolger%20%23640_1.jpg
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Birdwatcher/Bolger%20%23640_2.jpg
Was discussed.
What a boat! This would be good for your list of Anhinga alternatives.
I found the thread searching for more about the building of
Wish II, which I haven't found.
Mark
pvanderw@...wrote:
Recently the miniature Jochems
Camper #640
18' x 5'3" x 6" gaff cat sharpie with
Birdwatcher cabin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Birdwatcher/Bolger%20%23640_1.jpg
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Birdwatcher/Bolger%20%23640_2.jpg
Was discussed.
What a boat! This would be good for your list of Anhinga alternatives.
I found the thread searching for more about the building of
Wish II, which I haven't found.
Mark
pvanderw@...wrote:
>snip
>
> However, if you really only want a sharpie of about that size, you
> might fax PCB to ask how he is feeling about his Otters. They are
> about the same size and accomodation. I know he felt he could improve
> on the first, three masted, Otter, and that the Otter II was not a
> great success as first drawn. But perhaps the bugs have been worked
> out. And was there a rumor about an Otter III?
>
> And did not someone recently build a 20' Wish? Do we have a
> performance review? Oh, and the AS19 - not really a sharpie and not
> really a pram. perhaps a pramie?
>
> Peter
So many boats, so little space for them in the back yard...
Neither of the first two Otters compares for interior volume
with Anhinga. Wish II comes closer, is about the same
weight, but has a shorter waterline. From the study plan,
it looks like one sits on top of AS-19.
The boat Bolger previously named as a possibly superior
solution to the same wish list is the Birdwatcher.
Anhinga's combination of roomy cabin and big, secure cockpit
on such light weight seems unique to me.
Seeing the plans by one eyeful at the smaller scale reminded
me he svelte she is. Do we think she's fast to boot?
Mark
pvanderw@...wrote:
Neither of the first two Otters compares for interior volume
with Anhinga. Wish II comes closer, is about the same
weight, but has a shorter waterline. From the study plan,
it looks like one sits on top of AS-19.
The boat Bolger previously named as a possibly superior
solution to the same wish list is the Birdwatcher.
Anhinga's combination of roomy cabin and big, secure cockpit
on such light weight seems unique to me.
Seeing the plans by one eyeful at the smaller scale reminded
me he svelte she is. Do we think she's fast to boot?
Mark
pvanderw@...wrote:
>
> Having an advanced sense of wonderment myself (especially with
> respect to boats), I can appreciate the urge to see if the
> Eek/Anhinga idea really works.
>
> However, if you really only want a sharpie of about that size, you
> might fax PCB to ask how he is feeling about his Otters. They are
> about the same size and accomodation. I know he felt he could improve
> on the first, three masted, Otter, and that the Otter II was not a
> great success as first drawn. But perhaps the bugs have been worked
> out. And was there a rumor about an Otter III?
>
> And did not someone recently build a 20' Wish? Do we have a
> performance review? Oh, and the AS19 - not really a sharpie and not
> really a pram. perhaps a pramie?
>
> Peter
Having an advanced sense of wonderment myself (especially with
respect to boats), I can appreciate the urge to see if the
Eek/Anhinga idea really works.
However, if you really only want a sharpie of about that size, you
might fax PCB to ask how he is feeling about his Otters. They are
about the same size and accomodation. I know he felt he could improve
on the first, three masted, Otter, and that the Otter II was not a
great success as first drawn. But perhaps the bugs have been worked
out. And was there a rumor about an Otter III?
And did not someone recently build a 20' Wish? Do we have a
performance review? Oh, and the AS19 - not really a sharpie and not
really a pram. perhaps a pramie?
Peter
respect to boats), I can appreciate the urge to see if the
Eek/Anhinga idea really works.
However, if you really only want a sharpie of about that size, you
might fax PCB to ask how he is feeling about his Otters. They are
about the same size and accomodation. I know he felt he could improve
on the first, three masted, Otter, and that the Otter II was not a
great success as first drawn. But perhaps the bugs have been worked
out. And was there a rumor about an Otter III?
And did not someone recently build a 20' Wish? Do we have a
performance review? Oh, and the AS19 - not really a sharpie and not
really a pram. perhaps a pramie?
Peter
Andy,
I'm glad that others can see the drawings.
Apart from the endplate, there are two things that
theoretically help this rudder's efficiency.
Its somewhat is broad for its depth. Being hung straight up
and down, it doesn't lose effectiveness hard over the way it
would on an angled sternpost.
Nevertheless, your dropping blade might still be needed. PCB
might say okay to that. The one for Eeek! is similar. The
Economy Cruiser has a higher aspect one.
Mark
roue20ca@...wrote:
I'm glad that others can see the drawings.
Apart from the endplate, there are two things that
theoretically help this rudder's efficiency.
Its somewhat is broad for its depth. Being hung straight up
and down, it doesn't lose effectiveness hard over the way it
would on an angled sternpost.
Nevertheless, your dropping blade might still be needed. PCB
might say okay to that. The one for Eeek! is similar. The
Economy Cruiser has a higher aspect one.
Mark
roue20ca@...wrote:
>snip
> Mark, thanks for scanning the plans in it is the most
> complete look at Anhinga I have seen yet.
> snip
> The rudder seems very shallow
> Andy
--- In bolger@y..., Mark Albanese <marka@o...> wrote:
complete look at Anhinga I have seen yet.
The rudder seems very shallow I can see the endplate but I still
wonder if you would loose control if you heeled over even a little. I
have noticed this before on other designs and wonder why a pop up
dighy still rudder is not used; after all the center board, leaboards
or what ever are down.
Andy
> With the help of Kinkos NW there was a way to pull aMark, thanks for scanning the plans in it is the most
> folder's worth together.
> Find plans scanned in Bolger2 at
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/Anhinga/
>
> Mark
complete look at Anhinga I have seen yet.
The rudder seems very shallow I can see the endplate but I still
wonder if you would loose control if you heeled over even a little. I
have noticed this before on other designs and wonder why a pop up
dighy still rudder is not used; after all the center board, leaboards
or what ever are down.
Andy
May not be weird as that, Tom.
If you want your own test run, throw 2 sheets of plywood at
an Eeek.
Mark
thomas dalzell wrote:
If you want your own test run, throw 2 sheets of plywood at
an Eeek.
Mark
thomas dalzell wrote:
>
> I got my plans today. It looks kind of interesting,
> on the other hand, the Sandy Bottoms chronicles are
> enough to deter all but the most faint of heart.
>
With the help of Kinkos NW there was a way to pull a
folder's worth together.
Find plans scanned in Bolger2 at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/Anhinga/
Mark
folder's worth together.
Find plans scanned in Bolger2 at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/Anhinga/
Mark
Mark, that comes through loud and clear. Has anyone
else built one to the actual plans?
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
Thom, If anybody wants to do themselves and Mr. Bolger
a<BR>
favor, build this boat exactly as drawn.<BR>
<BR>
<
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
else built one to the actual plans?
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
Thom, If anybody wants to do themselves and Mr. Bolger
a<BR>
favor, build this boat exactly as drawn.<BR>
<BR>
<
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Thom, If anybody wants to do themselves and Mr. Bolger a
favor, build this boat exactly as drawn.
Mark
thomas dalzell wrote:
favor, build this boat exactly as drawn.
Mark
thomas dalzell wrote:
>
> I got my plans today. It looks kind of interesting,
> on the other hand, the Sandy Bottoms chronicles are
> enough to deter all but the most faint of heart.
> <
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Build your own website in minutes and for free at
>http://ca.geocities.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
> dead horses
> - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and
> punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip
> all you like
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of Service.
I got my plans today. It looks kind of interesting,
on the other hand, the Sandy Bottoms chronicles are
enough to deter all but the most faint of heart.
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
I have a set of plans. I'm trying to figure out how
to<BR>
reduce them into the computer to share for less than
they<BR>
cost in the first place.<BR>
<
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
on the other hand, the Sandy Bottoms chronicles are
enough to deter all but the most faint of heart.
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
I have a set of plans. I'm trying to figure out how
to<BR>
reduce them into the computer to share for less than
they<BR>
cost in the first place.<BR>
<
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
I have a set of plans. I'm trying to figure out how to
reduce them into the computer to share for less than they
cost in the first place.
Mark
Chris Crandall wrote:
snip
reduce them into the computer to share for less than they
cost in the first place.
Mark
Chris Crandall wrote:
snip
>How is that so many people
> are describing it so knowledgeably here?
It is the nature things such as e-mail lists....
Geren W. Mortensen, Jr.
Columbia, Maryland, USA
Geren's Personal Site:http://members.home.com/gerenm
Geren's Photography Site:http://members.home.com/gerenphoto
Geren's Boating Site:http://members.home.com/gerenboat
The On30Guy On30 Web Site:http://members.home.com/on30guy
UgotaWanit: A New Music Experience:http://www.ugotawanit.com
Four County Society of Model Engineers:http://www.fcsme.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Crandall [mailto:crandall@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:02 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Anhinga
OK, good, I'm not an idiot. How is that so many people are describing it
so knowledgeably here?
Geren W. Mortensen, Jr.
Columbia, Maryland, USA
Geren's Personal Site:http://members.home.com/gerenm
Geren's Photography Site:http://members.home.com/gerenphoto
Geren's Boating Site:http://members.home.com/gerenboat
The On30Guy On30 Web Site:http://members.home.com/on30guy
UgotaWanit: A New Music Experience:http://www.ugotawanit.com
Four County Society of Model Engineers:http://www.fcsme.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Crandall [mailto:crandall@...]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 5:02 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Anhinga
OK, good, I'm not an idiot. How is that so many people are describing it
so knowledgeably here?
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, thomas dalzell wrote:
so knowledgeably here?
> The only reference I know of is in the 30 Odd Boats, where the 11.5OK, good, I'm not an idiot. How is that so many people are describing it
> and 34.5' version are detailled in the chapter Eeek!, no mention of
> Anhinga. There is a picture of Sandy Bottoms in one of the wooden
> boats, it was mentioned in a past post, somewhere in #s 80-89, in the
> launchings collum.
so knowledgeably here?
The only reference I know of is in the 30 Odd Boats,
where the 11.5 and 34.5' version are detailled in the
chapter Eeek!, no mention of Anhinga. There is a
picture of Sandy Bottoms in one of the wooden boats,
it was mentioned in a past post, somewhere in #s
80-89, in the launchings collum.
--- Chris Crandall <crandall@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
Can someone tell me where Anhinga is in the Bolger
oeuvre?<BR>
I own all the books, and couldn't find it
mentioned.<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250"
border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/rand=110603184"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt>
Bolger rules!!!<BR>
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
dead horses<BR>
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on
topic, and punctuate<BR>
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts,
snip all you like<BR>
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>
- Unsubscribe:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
where the 11.5 and 34.5' version are detailled in the
chapter Eeek!, no mention of Anhinga. There is a
picture of Sandy Bottoms in one of the wooden boats,
it was mentioned in a past post, somewhere in #s
80-89, in the launchings collum.
--- Chris Crandall <crandall@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
Can someone tell me where Anhinga is in the Bolger
oeuvre?<BR>
I own all the books, and couldn't find it
mentioned.<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"
![http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"](http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"){kind=link}
alt="" width="300" height="250"
border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/rand=110603184"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt>
Bolger rules!!!<BR>
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
dead horses<BR>
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on
topic, and punctuate<BR>
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts,
snip all you like<BR>
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>
- Unsubscribe:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Can someone tell me where Anhinga is in the Bolger oeuvre?
I own all the books, and couldn't find it mentioned.
I own all the books, and couldn't find it mentioned.
I agree about the ballast. It is a whole other
country to be contemplating 8600" displacement.
40,000#?, Is there an even bigger Eeek?
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
Yes, you're right, Thomas. I just think they're more
alike<BR>
than not, and that it would be near the bottom of
Philip<BR>
Bolger's pile.<BR>
<BR>
Long ago he liked the prototype canoe enough to use it
more<BR>
than once, even put in water ballast to save carrying
'round<BR>
the pigs. But he never saw Anhinga work...<BR>
<BR>
The 600' LM2 rig is strictly for light air.<BR>
<BR>
If you want one, SuperEeek could make a lovely mobile
summer<BR>
home, or maybe something to confound the guys with
$100,000<BR>
round the bouys craft.<BR>
<BR>
Without the drawings, I don't think its clear just how
much<BR>
lead is planned for either BE or the LM2. Near 40,000
pounds<BR>
displacement? That would be the first engineering
problem to solve.<BR>
<BR>
If you wanted water ballast in the Super, that would
be<BR>
about the largest boat like that I know.<BR>
<BR>
Mark<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
thomas dalzell wrote:<BR>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250"
border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/rand=428366468"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt>
Bolger rules!!!<BR>
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
dead horses<BR>
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on
topic, and punctuate<BR>
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts,
snip all you like<BR>
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>
- Unsubscribe:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
country to be contemplating 8600" displacement.
40,000#?, Is there an even bigger Eeek?
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
Yes, you're right, Thomas. I just think they're more
alike<BR>
than not, and that it would be near the bottom of
Philip<BR>
Bolger's pile.<BR>
<BR>
Long ago he liked the prototype canoe enough to use it
more<BR>
than once, even put in water ballast to save carrying
'round<BR>
the pigs. But he never saw Anhinga work...<BR>
<BR>
The 600' LM2 rig is strictly for light air.<BR>
<BR>
If you want one, SuperEeek could make a lovely mobile
summer<BR>
home, or maybe something to confound the guys with
$100,000<BR>
round the bouys craft.<BR>
<BR>
Without the drawings, I don't think its clear just how
much<BR>
lead is planned for either BE or the LM2. Near 40,000
pounds<BR>
displacement? That would be the first engineering
problem to solve.<BR>
<BR>
If you wanted water ballast in the Super, that would
be<BR>
about the largest boat like that I know.<BR>
<BR>
Mark<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
thomas dalzell wrote:<BR>
> <BR>a<BR>
> I agree with you, but I also think the 34.5' is
> different approach. It is a moreeconomical, and<BR>
> minimalist approach, in that sense it can befully or<BR>
> otherwise developed. Like comparing asharpie to a<BR>
> keel boat or multihull, they all have theirpoints in<BR>
> different directions.<BR>more<BR>
> <BR>
> <marka@...> wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> My impression is that the Loose Moose is a
> complete development on the idea of a big,economy seagoing<BR>
> sharpie.<BR></tt>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250"
border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/rand=428366468"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt>
Bolger rules!!!<BR>
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
dead horses<BR>
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on
topic, and punctuate<BR>
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts,
snip all you like<BR>
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>
- Unsubscribe:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Yes, you're right, Thomas. I just think they're more alike
than not, and that it would be near the bottom of Philip
Bolger's pile.
Long ago he liked the prototype canoe enough to use it more
than once, even put in water ballast to save carrying 'round
the pigs. But he never saw Anhinga work...
The 600' LM2 rig is strictly for light air.
If you want one, SuperEeek could make a lovely mobile summer
home, or maybe something to confound the guys with $100,000
round the bouys craft.
Without the drawings, I don't think its clear just how much
lead is planned for either BE or the LM2. Near 40,000 pounds
displacement? That would be the first engineering problem to solve.
If you wanted water ballast in the Super, that would be
about the largest boat like that I know.
Mark
thomas dalzell wrote:
than not, and that it would be near the bottom of Philip
Bolger's pile.
Long ago he liked the prototype canoe enough to use it more
than once, even put in water ballast to save carrying 'round
the pigs. But he never saw Anhinga work...
The 600' LM2 rig is strictly for light air.
If you want one, SuperEeek could make a lovely mobile summer
home, or maybe something to confound the guys with $100,000
round the bouys craft.
Without the drawings, I don't think its clear just how much
lead is planned for either BE or the LM2. Near 40,000 pounds
displacement? That would be the first engineering problem to solve.
If you wanted water ballast in the Super, that would be
about the largest boat like that I know.
Mark
thomas dalzell wrote:
>
> I agree with you, but I also think the 34.5' is a
> different approach. It is a more economical, and
> minimalist approach, in that sense it can be fully or
> otherwise developed. Like comparing a sharpie to a
> keel boat or multihull, they all have their points in
> different directions.
>
> <marka@...> wrote:
>
> My impression is that the Loose Moose is a more
> complete development on the idea of a big, economy seagoing
> sharpie.
I agree with you, but I also think the 34.5' is a
different approach. It is a more economical, and
minimalist approach, in that sense it can be fully or
otherwise developed. Like comparing a sharpie to a
keel boat or multihull, they all have their points in
different directions.
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
TD,<BR>
<BR>
My impression is that the Loose Moose is a more
complete<BR>
development on the idea of a big, economy seagoing
sharpie.<BR>
<BR>
Mark <BR>
<BR>
thomas dalzell wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250"
border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/rand=169500740"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt>
Bolger rules!!!<BR>
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
dead horses<BR>
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on
topic, and punctuate<BR>
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts,
snip all you like<BR>
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>
- Unsubscribe:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free at http://ca.geocities.com
different approach. It is a more economical, and
minimalist approach, in that sense it can be fully or
otherwise developed. Like comparing a sharpie to a
keel boat or multihull, they all have their points in
different directions.
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
TD,<BR>
<BR>
My impression is that the Loose Moose is a more
complete<BR>
development on the idea of a big, economy seagoing
sharpie.<BR>
<BR>
Mark <BR>
<BR>
thomas dalzell wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Loose Moose has about 3 times the sail area ofthe<BR>
> 34.5' footer, the principle seems quitedifferent. He<BR>
> refers to Big Eeek as an economy SEAGOINGcruiser.<BR>
> Can one read anything into that? Is thatthe same<BR>
> passagemaking idea as Loose Moose?<BR>_______________________________________________________<BR>
> <BR>
>
> Build your own website in minutes and for freeat<BR>
> <ahref="http://ca.geocities.com">http://ca.geocities.com</a><BR>
> <BR>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor<BR>
>
>ADVERTISEMENT<BR>
> <BR>flogging<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> Bolger rules!!!<BR>
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or
> dead horses<BR>on topic, and<BR>
> - pls take "personals" off-list, stay
> punctuate<BR>posts, snip<BR>
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your
> all you like<BR>1209,<BR>
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
> - Unsubscribe:
> <BR>Yahoo! Terms<BR>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> of Service.<BR></tt>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center><font
face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font><br><a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/R=0/*http://www.classmates.com/index.tf?s=5085"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/cl/classmates_com2/bll_lrec1.gif"
alt="" width="300" height="250"
border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=213858.1737107.3257770.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=763352/rand=169500740"></td></tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt>
Bolger rules!!!<BR>
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
dead horses<BR>
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on
topic, and punctuate<BR>
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts,
snip all you like<BR>
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>
- Unsubscribe:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free at http://ca.geocities.com
TD,
My impression is that the Loose Moose is a more complete
development on the idea of a big, economy seagoing sharpie.
Mark
thomas dalzell wrote:
My impression is that the Loose Moose is a more complete
development on the idea of a big, economy seagoing sharpie.
Mark
thomas dalzell wrote:
> Loose Moose has about 3 times the sail area of the
> 34.5' footer, the principle seems quite different. He
> refers to Big Eeek as an economy SEAGOING cruiser.
> Can one read anything into that? Is that the same
> passagemaking idea as Loose Moose?
>
> _______________________________________________________
> Build your own website in minutes and for free at
>http://ca.geocities.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
> dead horses
> - pls take "personals" off-list, stay on topic, and
> punctuate
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts, snip
> all you like
> - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
> Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of Service.
Thanks Mark,
As to:
"Economy 36 is not a finished design. The 38' Loose
Moose 2
is just about the apotheosis of the box sailboat
effort.
You'd have to talk very persuasively to interest
Philip
Bolger in a boat that was only slightly different."
Loose Moose has about 3 times the sail area of the
34.5' footer, the principle seems quite different. He
refers to Big Eeek as an economy SEAGOING cruiser.
Can one read anything into that? Is that the same
passagemaking idea as Loose Moose?
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
As to:
"Economy 36 is not a finished design. The 38' Loose
Moose 2
is just about the apotheosis of the box sailboat
effort.
You'd have to talk very persuasively to interest
Philip
Bolger in a boat that was only slightly different."
Loose Moose has about 3 times the sail area of the
34.5' footer, the principle seems quite different. He
refers to Big Eeek as an economy SEAGOING cruiser.
Can one read anything into that? Is that the same
passagemaking idea as Loose Moose?
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Anhingers,
There's just one leeboard, drops through a couple of battens
outside the boat. A weighted centerboard might undermine the
concept. Either cockpit or the great big cabin suffers. A
bilge keel or two could work, but be more trouble than
what's there. The beauty of the water ballast is in the
lightweight towing.
This group of boats is all about ballast. With full tanks,
#484 has a lot of it. The B/W ratio is 40-50%. Its
positioned pretty low. Not a 2x size canoe, the beam's is a
full 5'. Withal, I doubt its super tender.
I think the sail would be pretty much interchangeable with
Birdwatcher's. Don's PB&F drawn lug rig is a good
alternative. They're said to be easy reefing.
If weird steering became a problem, some various skegs
along the center might be a fix. But, sticking to the plans,
it doesn't seem likely to be worse than any light, flat
boat. The sections aft will add directional stability.
Economy 36 is not a finished design. The 38' Loose Moose 2
is just about the apotheosis of the box sailboat effort.
You'd have to talk very persuasively to interest Philip
Bolger in a boat that was only slightly different.
But if you don't need the world cruiser, a 36' version
might be fabulous. Safest to take the lines exactly from the
book, then dare up a construction plan.
Too bad we don't all live in the same area. We could coop
our cash for three! I've been calling mine 'Anathema'.
Mark
There's just one leeboard, drops through a couple of battens
outside the boat. A weighted centerboard might undermine the
concept. Either cockpit or the great big cabin suffers. A
bilge keel or two could work, but be more trouble than
what's there. The beauty of the water ballast is in the
lightweight towing.
This group of boats is all about ballast. With full tanks,
#484 has a lot of it. The B/W ratio is 40-50%. Its
positioned pretty low. Not a 2x size canoe, the beam's is a
full 5'. Withal, I doubt its super tender.
I think the sail would be pretty much interchangeable with
Birdwatcher's. Don's PB&F drawn lug rig is a good
alternative. They're said to be easy reefing.
If weird steering became a problem, some various skegs
along the center might be a fix. But, sticking to the plans,
it doesn't seem likely to be worse than any light, flat
boat. The sections aft will add directional stability.
Economy 36 is not a finished design. The 38' Loose Moose 2
is just about the apotheosis of the box sailboat effort.
You'd have to talk very persuasively to interest Philip
Bolger in a boat that was only slightly different.
But if you don't need the world cruiser, a 36' version
might be fabulous. Safest to take the lines exactly from the
book, then dare up a construction plan.
Too bad we don't all live in the same area. We could coop
our cash for three! I've been calling mine 'Anathema'.
Mark
Do any of you have an idea what sail would work with
Anhinga. I mean from the various Payson models.
Possibly the sail for birdwatcher?
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Anhinga. I mean from the various Payson models.
Possibly the sail for birdwatcher?
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
"I originated the
current discussion about Anhinga and was loosing
interest in the boat
because of mentioned stability problem"
I wonder how unstable it is? it is narrower than
some, but wider proportionaly than the 34.5'. Boats
do turn over, and the big deal with water ballast is
that they then don't sink, but it is going to be hard
to get the same performance you might get with even
internal ballast. The actual effect of the deeper aft
sections would be minimal, and essentialy non-existant
in terms of stability, except in terms of where the
weight could be located.
It is worth considering that the 34.5' version has
only 200 or so square feet of canvas, so it would seem
Sandy Bottoms was overcanvased (in some design
conditions) to boot, with it's added mizen.
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
current discussion about Anhinga and was loosing
interest in the boat
because of mentioned stability problem"
I wonder how unstable it is? it is narrower than
some, but wider proportionaly than the 34.5'. Boats
do turn over, and the big deal with water ballast is
that they then don't sink, but it is going to be hard
to get the same performance you might get with even
internal ballast. The actual effect of the deeper aft
sections would be minimal, and essentialy non-existant
in terms of stability, except in terms of where the
weight could be located.
It is worth considering that the 34.5' version has
only 200 or so square feet of canvas, so it would seem
Sandy Bottoms was overcanvased (in some design
conditions) to boot, with it's added mizen.
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Thanks Mark,
Do you know anything about the 36 footer, other than
what appears in 30 Odd Boats, was it ever built?
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Do you know anything about the 36 footer, other than
what appears in 30 Odd Boats, was it ever built?
--- Mark Albanese <marka@...> wrote:
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
--- In bolger@y..., Mark Albanese <marka@o...> wrote:
thanks for explaining the step fins. I believe I originated the
current discussion about Anhinga and was loosing interest in the boat
because of mentioned stability problem. What you say makes good
sence. Does she carry a set of leeboards or just one; I like the
leeboards because it frees up space but a center board could have a
small amount of lead in it (reduce the water ballast) and improove
stability with ballast down low.
Just a thought
Andy
> TD,Mark,
>
> Sorry for the cryptic text...I realized after sending one
> shouldn't call them sisters either, rather say descendants.
>
> Peero is a wonderful miniature sailing canoe with plans
> available from PB&F or, thanks to Craig O'donnel,
> beautifully presented at
>http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/boat/bolger.html#peero
>
> You'll see its very similar to Eeek, except with a turned up
> stern. Looks less like a casket, more like a boat. Perhaps a
> nicer bet.
>
> There are two lines through this corner of Philip Bolger's
> work, with half the smaller ones being water ballasted:
> Eeek, Anhinga and the 36 ft Cruiser, or the Peero, Martha
> Jane, and the Loose Moose II ( which is a little longer,
> heavier, and definitely more thoroughly worked out by him
> than the 36 has ever been ) . In the three sizes, builders
> have their pick.
>
> Number 484 and Martha Jane are the least exact parallel. No
> one has a 500 pound MJ. Its turned up stern is a time
> honored and practical convention.
>
> Burning to build another boat,
> One of my mother's true slogans is, "You pays your money,
> and you takes your choice."
>
>
> p.s.
> I expect trouble with Sandy Bottoms came not from the stern
> but from the step fins. It's true that four feet up from the
> water is a long way to scramble into the boat, and that a
> step might be invaluable. So you probably have to come up
> with a rope ladder or something.
>
> But rigid fins perpendicular to the chines seem doubtful to
> me. While a normal appendage tilts away from a heel, the
> horizontal fin engages the water more. To be useful, the
> smallest I can imagine are minimum 4 inches by 10. Are there
> combinations of wind and water and overcanvassed boat where
> 40 square inches could dig right in and send all sailing
> over? Well heeled, it would have more force than all of the
> rest of the boat combined. Weight up high and you'd have a
> physics lesson. I don't know if they were ever taken off.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> "What?"
>
> > "Builders cobbling up a gamble on the deep stern
> > EEEk, or its sisters Anhinga and the 36' Economy Cruiser,
> >ought to recall that Eeek became the Peero.
> >
> > Which shouldn't imply that Design #484 and Martha Jane
> > are the mid size cognates. "
thanks for explaining the step fins. I believe I originated the
current discussion about Anhinga and was loosing interest in the boat
because of mentioned stability problem. What you say makes good
sence. Does she carry a set of leeboards or just one; I like the
leeboards because it frees up space but a center board could have a
small amount of lead in it (reduce the water ballast) and improove
stability with ballast down low.
Just a thought
Andy
TD,
Sorry for the cryptic text...I realized after sending one
shouldn't call them sisters either, rather say descendants.
Peero is a wonderful miniature sailing canoe with plans
available from PB&F or, thanks to Craig O'donnel,
beautifully presented at
http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/boat/bolger.html#peero
You'll see its very similar to Eeek, except with a turned up
stern. Looks less like a casket, more like a boat. Perhaps a
nicer bet.
There are two lines through this corner of Philip Bolger's
work, with half the smaller ones being water ballasted:
Eeek, Anhinga and the 36 ft Cruiser, or the Peero, Martha
Jane, and the Loose Moose II ( which is a little longer,
heavier, and definitely more thoroughly worked out by him
than the 36 has ever been ) . In the three sizes, builders
have their pick.
Number 484 and Martha Jane are the least exact parallel. No
one has a 500 pound MJ. Its turned up stern is a time
honored and practical convention.
Burning to build another boat,
One of my mother's true slogans is, "You pays your money,
and you takes your choice."
p.s.
I expect trouble with Sandy Bottoms came not from the stern
but from the step fins. It's true that four feet up from the
water is a long way to scramble into the boat, and that a
step might be invaluable. So you probably have to come up
with a rope ladder or something.
But rigid fins perpendicular to the chines seem doubtful to
me. While a normal appendage tilts away from a heel, the
horizontal fin engages the water more. To be useful, the
smallest I can imagine are minimum 4 inches by 10. Are there
combinations of wind and water and overcanvassed boat where
40 square inches could dig right in and send all sailing
over? Well heeled, it would have more force than all of the
rest of the boat combined. Weight up high and you'd have a
physics lesson. I don't know if they were ever taken off.
Mark
"What?"
Sorry for the cryptic text...I realized after sending one
shouldn't call them sisters either, rather say descendants.
Peero is a wonderful miniature sailing canoe with plans
available from PB&F or, thanks to Craig O'donnel,
beautifully presented at
http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/boat/bolger.html#peero
You'll see its very similar to Eeek, except with a turned up
stern. Looks less like a casket, more like a boat. Perhaps a
nicer bet.
There are two lines through this corner of Philip Bolger's
work, with half the smaller ones being water ballasted:
Eeek, Anhinga and the 36 ft Cruiser, or the Peero, Martha
Jane, and the Loose Moose II ( which is a little longer,
heavier, and definitely more thoroughly worked out by him
than the 36 has ever been ) . In the three sizes, builders
have their pick.
Number 484 and Martha Jane are the least exact parallel. No
one has a 500 pound MJ. Its turned up stern is a time
honored and practical convention.
Burning to build another boat,
One of my mother's true slogans is, "You pays your money,
and you takes your choice."
p.s.
I expect trouble with Sandy Bottoms came not from the stern
but from the step fins. It's true that four feet up from the
water is a long way to scramble into the boat, and that a
step might be invaluable. So you probably have to come up
with a rope ladder or something.
But rigid fins perpendicular to the chines seem doubtful to
me. While a normal appendage tilts away from a heel, the
horizontal fin engages the water more. To be useful, the
smallest I can imagine are minimum 4 inches by 10. Are there
combinations of wind and water and overcanvassed boat where
40 square inches could dig right in and send all sailing
over? Well heeled, it would have more force than all of the
rest of the boat combined. Weight up high and you'd have a
physics lesson. I don't know if they were ever taken off.
Mark
"What?"
> "Builders cobbling up a gamble on the deep stern
> EEEk, or its sisters Anhinga and the 36' Economy Cruiser,
>ought to recall that Eeek became the Peero.
>
> Which shouldn't imply that Design #484 and Martha Jane
> are the mid size cognates. "
"Builders cobbling up a gamble on the deep stern
EEEk, or
its sisters Anhinga and the 36' Economy Cruiser, ought
to
recall that Eeek became the Peero.
Which shouldn't imply that Design #484 and Martha Jane
are
the mid size cognates. "
Mark,
Can you elaborate on your concerns, or expectations?
I am not able to follow your remarks, and I am not
familliar with Peero.
Thanks
TD
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
EEEk, or
its sisters Anhinga and the 36' Economy Cruiser, ought
to
recall that Eeek became the Peero.
Which shouldn't imply that Design #484 and Martha Jane
are
the mid size cognates. "
Mark,
Can you elaborate on your concerns, or expectations?
I am not able to follow your remarks, and I am not
familliar with Peero.
Thanks
TD
_______________________________________________________
Build your own website in minutes and for free athttp://ca.geocities.com
Builders cobbling up a gamble on the deep stern EEEk, or
its sisters Anhinga and the 36' Economy Cruiser, ought to
recall that Eeek became the Peero.
Which shouldn't imply that Design #484 and Martha Jane are
the mid size cognates. Anhinga is not all of 20 sheets, and
is very lightly framed. You're supposed to be able to row it.
Oh, I'd love to pick up Sandy Bottoms.
Mark
its sisters Anhinga and the 36' Economy Cruiser, ought to
recall that Eeek became the Peero.
Which shouldn't imply that Design #484 and Martha Jane are
the mid size cognates. Anhinga is not all of 20 sheets, and
is very lightly framed. You're supposed to be able to row it.
Oh, I'd love to pick up Sandy Bottoms.
Mark
--- In bolger@y..., Thundershield@a... wrote:
but it is only refer to the style of stern, I think. Mark Albanese
was the individual who mentioned it. If you can get the July/August
1989 copy of WB there is a picture of a modified version in the
launching section. The original would not have had the step fins (not
really visible in the photo) or the mizzen.
Andy Moore
> Is Anhinga shown in any of Bolger's books? Thanks, DonDon, I'm not sure the only refer I have heard of is in 30 Odd boats
but it is only refer to the style of stern, I think. Mark Albanese
was the individual who mentioned it. If you can get the July/August
1989 copy of WB there is a picture of a modified version in the
launching section. The original would not have had the step fins (not
really visible in the photo) or the mizzen.
Andy Moore
No, but thanks.
I still think it's a great example of Bolger design: able,
distinctive, easy to build, and cheap. Maybe someday...
Mark
I still think it's a great example of Bolger design: able,
distinctive, easy to build, and cheap. Maybe someday...
Mark
> You haven't built from them right?
> Are you interested in selling them?
>
> TD---
Is Anhinga shown in any of Bolger's books? Thanks, Don
Mark -
You haven't built from them right?
Are you interested in selling them?
TD---
You haven't built from them right?
Are you interested in selling them?
TD---
Thanks for the picture reference, I pulled out that copy, and looked
it up. I had been thinking of building just such a boat, no answer
yet to my inquiry about the 34.5' version from 30 Odd Boats. I just
figured scale up Eeek! by a factor of two, and mess about a little.
Of course it has already been done.
it up. I had been thinking of building just such a boat, no answer
yet to my inquiry about the 34.5' version from 30 Odd Boats. I just
figured scale up Eeek! by a factor of two, and mess about a little.
Of course it has already been done.
--- In bolger@y..., roue20ca@y... wrote:
> I noticed two posting recently which mention the sharpie Anhinga, I
> am very interested in this vessel and would like to find
> out any info I can. What I do know is obtain from a posting in
> Launchings of July/Aug 1989 issue of Wooden Boat, its not
> much LOA 23'3", double ended, water ballasted and cat rig. The
> posting refered to a boat called Sandy Bottoms which had
> been modified to include a small mizzen and step-fins, based on the
> picture it looks like a big Windsprint with a jibheaded
> (marconi or bermudian) main instead of the balanced lug. Can anyone
> direct me to more info about this vessel (Anhinga or
> a variation on the original)?
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Andy Moore
--- In bolger@y..., Mark Albanese <marka@o...> wrote:
small cockpit vs the large usable (safe from a people stand point) as
been an on going debate for me. I like to coastal cruise beaching my
boat on remote islands etc. to do some exploring and birdwatcher style
boats make it hard to get in and out of the boat from the water or
beach. However the same coastal cruising makes the safety of BW style
appealing.
140 sq hey, I'm very interested in the balanced lug rig; I believe
that option is available for the BW not sure about Anhinga? I like
the controle the balanced lug brings.
Regarding water in the cockpit, I thought about borrowing the Elvstrom
Bailer concept from dighies. Anyone know if they make one big enough
for boat this size?
I was wondering about those step fins they are not clear in the
picture. Wonder if it was attempt to stabilize the boat of wind in a
breeze.
I'm interested in Jim Michalak's Jukebox2 and Jewelbox but they are a
little smaller than I had in mind. Square bow good for beaching
though.
Andy
> Andy,Yes I understand, the seaworthy (from a boat stand point) aspect of a
>
> What I like about Anhinga in preference to BW, since they
> both use similar piles of stuff, is that Anhinga does have a
> real cockpit. After seeing the versatility the long slot
> demonstrated by Jim Michalak, If I built one today, I'd sure
> have one myself.
>
> The dimensions are 23' 3" x 5' 0" and about 4' deep stem to
> stern. The cockpit is 6' 7" and looks to feel very secure.
> To be clear, Anhinga's bow is rockered in the high, Bolger
> style, with a gentle curve running down to about amidships.
> Aft of that the bottom is completely straight. It looked to
> me like about 20 sheets of ply, total about 600 pounds. Sail
> area of the sprit boom rig is 140'. There's a substantial
> drop through a slot on the outside leeboard.
>
> I doubt there'd be trouble turning. Don Carron was also
> interested in this design and corresponded with the fellow
> who built the first one. Maybe he'll chime in here with more
> info about the handling. ( I can't find what you wrote me
> last year, Don.) To me, it looks both fast and very shippy,
> but I would not try Tahiti.
>
> The theory of the square boat relies on the high sides for
> plenty of reserve stability, but that assumes you've kept
> the water out. My plans do not show the step fins added to
> Sandy Bottoms. Maybe they tripped it.
>
> BTW have you seen the picture of Jim Michalak's old BW
> pulled up on the beach? It shows ( to me ) a very handsome boat.
>
> I'm certain Phil Bolger & Friends has everything they've
> ever done. I hear that faxing works great with them. Please
> report if you learn anything.
>
> Mark
>
small cockpit vs the large usable (safe from a people stand point) as
been an on going debate for me. I like to coastal cruise beaching my
boat on remote islands etc. to do some exploring and birdwatcher style
boats make it hard to get in and out of the boat from the water or
beach. However the same coastal cruising makes the safety of BW style
appealing.
140 sq hey, I'm very interested in the balanced lug rig; I believe
that option is available for the BW not sure about Anhinga? I like
the controle the balanced lug brings.
Regarding water in the cockpit, I thought about borrowing the Elvstrom
Bailer concept from dighies. Anyone know if they make one big enough
for boat this size?
I was wondering about those step fins they are not clear in the
picture. Wonder if it was attempt to stabilize the boat of wind in a
breeze.
I'm interested in Jim Michalak's Jukebox2 and Jewelbox but they are a
little smaller than I had in mind. Square bow good for beaching
though.
Andy
Andy,
What I like about Anhinga in preference to BW, since they
both use similar piles of stuff, is that Anhinga does have a
real cockpit. After seeing the versatility the long slot
demonstrated by Jim Michalak, If I built one today, I'd sure
have one myself.
The dimensions are 23' 3" x 5' 0" and about 4' deep stem to
stern. The cockpit is 6' 7" and looks to feel very secure.
To be clear, Anhinga's bow is rockered in the high, Bolger
style, with a gentle curve running down to about amidships.
Aft of that the bottom is completely straight. It looked to
me like about 20 sheets of ply, total about 600 pounds. Sail
area of the sprit boom rig is 140'. There's a substantial
drop through a slot on the outside leeboard.
I doubt there'd be trouble turning. Don Carron was also
interested in this design and corresponded with the fellow
who built the first one. Maybe he'll chime in here with more
info about the handling. ( I can't find what you wrote me
last year, Don.) To me, it looks both fast and very shippy,
but I would not try Tahiti.
The theory of the square boat relies on the high sides for
plenty of reserve stability, but that assumes you've kept
the water out. My plans do not show the step fins added to
Sandy Bottoms. Maybe they tripped it.
BTW have you seen the picture of Jim Michalak's old BW
pulled up on the beach? It shows ( to me ) a very handsome boat.
I'm certain Phil Bolger & Friends has everything they've
ever done. I hear that faxing works great with them. Please
report if you learn anything.
Mark
Andy wrote:
snips:
What I like about Anhinga in preference to BW, since they
both use similar piles of stuff, is that Anhinga does have a
real cockpit. After seeing the versatility the long slot
demonstrated by Jim Michalak, If I built one today, I'd sure
have one myself.
The dimensions are 23' 3" x 5' 0" and about 4' deep stem to
stern. The cockpit is 6' 7" and looks to feel very secure.
To be clear, Anhinga's bow is rockered in the high, Bolger
style, with a gentle curve running down to about amidships.
Aft of that the bottom is completely straight. It looked to
me like about 20 sheets of ply, total about 600 pounds. Sail
area of the sprit boom rig is 140'. There's a substantial
drop through a slot on the outside leeboard.
I doubt there'd be trouble turning. Don Carron was also
interested in this design and corresponded with the fellow
who built the first one. Maybe he'll chime in here with more
info about the handling. ( I can't find what you wrote me
last year, Don.) To me, it looks both fast and very shippy,
but I would not try Tahiti.
The theory of the square boat relies on the high sides for
plenty of reserve stability, but that assumes you've kept
the water out. My plans do not show the step fins added to
Sandy Bottoms. Maybe they tripped it.
BTW have you seen the picture of Jim Michalak's old BW
pulled up on the beach? It shows ( to me ) a very handsome boat.
I'm certain Phil Bolger & Friends has everything they've
ever done. I hear that faxing works great with them. Please
report if you learn anything.
Mark
Andy wrote:
snips:
>
> With little rocker does Anhinga have any trouble turning?
>
> Do you know if the more ballast narrow hull idea worked well? Narrow
> is fast, it just adds a stability problem to the equation.
>
> Do you know if the plans are still available?
--- In bolger@y..., Mark Albanese <marka@o...> wrote:
Well I have admired the Birdwatcher as well, I understand the design
concept but the cabin is as ugly and sin, wonder if the same thing
could be done with a somewhat more attractive cabin. I know, I know
that's not the point with PCB boats but I believe you can be
functional and attractive at the same time.
With little rocker does Anhinga have any trouble turning? I have also
given some consideration to decking a boat like this in completely and
just leaving a small cockpit like some of the old ocean going cruisers
use to do or similar to a laser. This would prevent the swamping
issue but makes staying in the boat difficult when it capsizes.
Do you know if the more ballast narrow hull idea worked well? Narrow
is fast, it just adds a stability problem to the equation.
Do you know if the plans are still available?
Andy
> Andy,Thanks for you input Mark
>
> That WB notice really got my attention once, too. I got the
> plans and an interesting letter from PCB. In the end it is
> too big for a city dweller like me to tuck away.
>
> The boat is not a larger Windsprint. That would be more like
> Birdwatcher. Anhinga's sections are very square. It has an
> unusual stern, which was described in 30 Odd Boats as part
> of the article on the Eeek! canoe and a proposed 36'
> seagoing sharpie. They all come to a point aft, but there's
> no rocker. The idea was to see if more ballast could be
> carried on a narrow, sharpie hull.
>
> Anhinga is spectacularly roomy boat. The 500# water ballast
> is conveniently located under the cockpit floor.
> The low cabin has good sitting headroom, is very long and
> unobstructed. Minimum plywood is 1/4".
>
> Sandy bottoms mysteriously turned over one day.
>
> Here's part of the letter, March 1991:
>
> " I've been arguing that the Birdwatcher design is a
> superior solution to the same wish list, but it's a fact
> that I find the Anhinga design attractive and would like to
> see one built as designed. The Eeek canoe is not much of a
> boat, but its behavior suggested that a biger version would
> be respectable.
>
> "At worst, it may need more positive bouancy. Placing this
> will make it much less roomy, so she shouldn't have it if
> she can get by without. I don't see how the modified Anhinga
> could have got bottom up unless the stern compartment
> flooded in some way.
>
> So far as I'm aware, his later, squareboat sailing sharpies
> revert to a more conventional turned up stern.
>
> Mark
>
> roue20ca@y... wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone
> > direct me to more info about this vessel (Anhinga or
> > a variation on the original)?
Well I have admired the Birdwatcher as well, I understand the design
concept but the cabin is as ugly and sin, wonder if the same thing
could be done with a somewhat more attractive cabin. I know, I know
that's not the point with PCB boats but I believe you can be
functional and attractive at the same time.
With little rocker does Anhinga have any trouble turning? I have also
given some consideration to decking a boat like this in completely and
just leaving a small cockpit like some of the old ocean going cruisers
use to do or similar to a laser. This would prevent the swamping
issue but makes staying in the boat difficult when it capsizes.
Do you know if the more ballast narrow hull idea worked well? Narrow
is fast, it just adds a stability problem to the equation.
Do you know if the plans are still available?
Andy
Andy,
That WB notice really got my attention once, too. I got the
plans and an interesting letter from PCB. In the end it is
too big for a city dweller like me to tuck away.
The boat is not a larger Windsprint. That would be more like
Birdwatcher. Anhinga's sections are very square. It has an
unusual stern, which was described in 30 Odd Boats as part
of the article on the Eeek! canoe and a proposed 36'
seagoing sharpie. They all come to a point aft, but there's
no rocker. The idea was to see if more ballast could be
carried on a narrow, sharpie hull.
Anhinga is spectacularly roomy boat. The 500# water ballast
is conveniently located under the cockpit floor.
The low cabin has good sitting headroom, is very long and
unobstructed. Minimum plywood is 1/4".
Sandy bottoms mysteriously turned over one day.
Here's part of the letter, March 1991:
" I've been arguing that the Birdwatcher design is a
superior solution to the same wish list, but it's a fact
that I find the Anhinga design attractive and would like to
see one built as designed. The Eeek canoe is not much of a
boat, but its behavior suggested that a biger version would
be respectable.
"At worst, it may need more positive bouancy. Placing this
will make it much less roomy, so she shouldn't have it if
she can get by without. I don't see how the modified Anhinga
could have got bottom up unless the stern compartment
flooded in some way.
So far as I'm aware, his later, squareboat sailing sharpies
revert to a more conventional turned up stern.
Mark
roue20ca@...wrote:
That WB notice really got my attention once, too. I got the
plans and an interesting letter from PCB. In the end it is
too big for a city dweller like me to tuck away.
The boat is not a larger Windsprint. That would be more like
Birdwatcher. Anhinga's sections are very square. It has an
unusual stern, which was described in 30 Odd Boats as part
of the article on the Eeek! canoe and a proposed 36'
seagoing sharpie. They all come to a point aft, but there's
no rocker. The idea was to see if more ballast could be
carried on a narrow, sharpie hull.
Anhinga is spectacularly roomy boat. The 500# water ballast
is conveniently located under the cockpit floor.
The low cabin has good sitting headroom, is very long and
unobstructed. Minimum plywood is 1/4".
Sandy bottoms mysteriously turned over one day.
Here's part of the letter, March 1991:
" I've been arguing that the Birdwatcher design is a
superior solution to the same wish list, but it's a fact
that I find the Anhinga design attractive and would like to
see one built as designed. The Eeek canoe is not much of a
boat, but its behavior suggested that a biger version would
be respectable.
"At worst, it may need more positive bouancy. Placing this
will make it much less roomy, so she shouldn't have it if
she can get by without. I don't see how the modified Anhinga
could have got bottom up unless the stern compartment
flooded in some way.
So far as I'm aware, his later, squareboat sailing sharpies
revert to a more conventional turned up stern.
Mark
roue20ca@...wrote:
>
> Can anyone
> direct me to more info about this vessel (Anhinga or
> a variation on the original)?
I noticed two posting recently which mention the sharpie Anhinga, I
am very interested in this vessel and would like to find
out any info I can. What I do know is obtain from a posting in
Launchings of July/Aug 1989 issue of Wooden Boat, its not
much LOA 23'3", double ended, water ballasted and cat rig. The
posting refered to a boat called Sandy Bottoms which had
been modified to include a small mizzen and step-fins, based on the
picture it looks like a big Windsprint with a jibheaded
(marconi or bermudian) main instead of the balanced lug. Can anyone
direct me to more info about this vessel (Anhinga or
a variation on the original)?
Thanks
Andy Moore
am very interested in this vessel and would like to find
out any info I can. What I do know is obtain from a posting in
Launchings of July/Aug 1989 issue of Wooden Boat, its not
much LOA 23'3", double ended, water ballasted and cat rig. The
posting refered to a boat called Sandy Bottoms which had
been modified to include a small mizzen and step-fins, based on the
picture it looks like a big Windsprint with a jibheaded
(marconi or bermudian) main instead of the balanced lug. Can anyone
direct me to more info about this vessel (Anhinga or
a variation on the original)?
Thanks
Andy Moore