Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

Prop shaft and prop is the simplest and most efficient solution. The
problem is draft. You can run the mercruiser almost all the way
retracted at low RPM's to work through shallow spots. It would be
difficult to get buy with less then 2 1/2 feet of draft with out a
tunnel.

For those interested in converting a car engine into a marine engine see
Ken hankinsons "Inboard Engine Installation " is an excellent source.
Glen L sells it I believe.

HJ

>
> I might be revealing my naivety, but what is wrong with a simple
> drive shaft and prop? Don't propellors work at 2000 rpm? Why use a
> sterndrive at all?
>

Done already

http://www.dbdmarine.com/

HJ
David Romasco wrote:

>
> At the risk of stirring the pot to excess, what about constant-velocity
> (CV) joints in place of the U-joints? Seems to me they'd do just fine
> with multi-axis thrust forces. There's an outfit or two that sell a
> drive train that replaces the prop shaft with a jointed set of links.
> Ahhh, never having to align the Iron Beast again....
>
> David Romasco
>

> Volvo makes or made a 4 cyl diesel in the 130 HP range,
> Mercruisers smallest diesel used to be 6 cyl and a lot
> larger.
>

I believe they use the Bravo I or II drives for the diesels.
These are built to take the punishment of big torque producers
like the 454 cubic inch motors. They could easily handle the
small diesels.

Jeff

Volvo makes or made a 4 cyl diesel in the 130 HP range, Mercruisers
smallest diesel used to be 6 cyl and a lot larger.

HJ

Jeff Blunck wrote:

>
> I don't believe an Alpha I or II could handle the torque of diesel unless is
> was a very low HP. They are designed for gas engines where the engine
> builds it HP in RPMs. A diesel puts out a lot of torque and lower RPMs.
> I'd bet you would shell out the gears fast.
>
> Jeff
>
>

Hmm. I don't know what happened to the link. Let's try again:

http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/yulohpage.html

--- In bolger@y..., "dagon_gsl" <dagon_gsl@y...> wrote:
> Here's an excellent resource for sculling info.
>
> Kellan
>

Here's an excellent resource for sculling info.

Kellan

--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/29/02 12:36:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
> proaconstrictor@y... writes:
>
>
> > Both oars and the
> > jellyfish have a recovery stroke due to the reciprocal
> > nature of the stroke. More efficient options would
> >
>
> ...not have a recovery stroke. Like the old-fashioned technique of
skulling
> (sic?) with an oar over the stern! Likewise a yuloh powers (I
believe) on
> both the "to" and the "fro" stroke. Both of these techniques permit
the
> operator to face forward.
>
> I don't have any experience with either. I have never
tried "skulling" (it
> that's the proper term) with anything that approached appropriate
equipment
> or with the benefit of instruction. If it is not more efficient
than pumping
> an umbrella underwater, it should be, as it is so much more
elegant!! Then
> there is the pure "show-off" factor of having mastered such an
esoteric
> skill!
>
> I really don't grasp the theory of "skulling" (despite having read
at least
> one nicely illustrated article on the subject somewhere - no entry
under
> "skulling" in the WB index). However, I have witnessed it being
done with
> impressive panache, so I know it can be done.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If there is a disadvantage to sculling the way i do
it, it would be the fact the energy doesn't appear
very well lined up with the direction the boat is
traveling. The yulloh may be better in this regard as
its blade is at a deeper angle. I am not to clear any
longer on what they do with the venician gondolla, but
it seems to speed it along nicely. By the way, for
those of you who must always be looking forward, how
about a set of those tall oarlocks and standing
forward facing rowing. I don't know much more about
this than was in the article on the Bolger Payson
doubleender in WB, but it looked nice enough.
(I believe) on 
both the "to" and the "fro"
stroke. Both of these techniques permit the 
operator to face forward. 
 
I don't have any experience with either. I have never
tried "skulling" (it 
that's the proper term) with anything that approached
appropriate equipment 
or with the benefit of instruction. If it is not more
efficient than pumping 
an umbrella underwater, it should be, as it is so much
more elegant!! Then 

______________________________________________________________________
Post your ad for FREE!http://personals.yahoo.ca

In a message dated 4/29/02 12:36:42 PM Central Daylight Time,
proaconstrictor@...writes:

> Both oars and the
> jellyfish have a recovery stroke due to the reciprocal
> nature of the stroke. More efficient options would
>

...not have a recovery stroke. Like the old-fashioned technique of skulling
(sic?) with an oar over the stern! Likewise a yuloh powers (I believe) on
both the "to" and the "fro" stroke. Both of these techniques permit the
operator to face forward.

I don't have any experience with either. I have never tried "skulling" (it
that's the proper term) with anything that approached appropriate equipment
or with the benefit of instruction. If it is not more efficient than pumping
an umbrella underwater, it should be, as it is so much more elegant!! Then
there is the pure "show-off" factor of having mastered such an esoteric
skill!

I really don't grasp the theory of "skulling" (despite having read at least
one nicely illustrated article on the subject somewhere - no entry under
"skulling" in the WB index). However, I have witnessed it being done with
impressive panache, so I know it can be done.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There is a boatbuilder in Canada who claims to have
 
worked this stuff out by trial and error to the point
that his footfin 
propelled kayak is faster than a normal one, but I
don't know how much 
of this is the efficiency of the fin and how much leg
power vs arm 
power. 

As you probably know he has been covered in both
Wooden Boat, and I think MAIB. The other advantage of
this kind of system is the continuous energu application.

______________________________________________________________________
Post your ad for FREE!http://personals.yahoo.ca

> ..this "jelly fish pole" might be real handy on the deck of
> a large boat in tight quarters when you need just to push the bow
> around a bit to reach the fuel dock etc..,

You could mock one up in less than an hour from a childs umbrella and
a aluminum telescoping pole bought at a swimming pool supply store.

Cut off the handle, insert a thin bolt in the remaining hollow handle
shank, glue into the end of aluminum pole, see sketch at:

http://www.hallman.org/bolger/jellypole.gif

> Maybe this technology will reduce
> cetacean tinnitus.

I don't suppose there is an application to leaf blowers that will
reduce human tinnitus.

My intuition doesn't like the waste part of the stroke used to re-
extend the "umbrella". My intuition has also been trained to assume
that optimum efficiency in fluids is obtained with a smooth flow, not
a stalled flow. I'd bet on fins (I count a propellor blade as
a "fin") over blades every time.

Peter

I think intuitive engineering is pretty dangerous, as is hypothesizing
as to what "nature intended". (e.g. if man was meant to fly he'd have
been given more money).

However, it turns out that there are some efficiencies in oscillating
fin propulsion not available to other methods. I started to look into
this but things got too technical for a recreational project so I gave
up. Suffice it to say that it was (maybe still is?) being studied
for ship propulsion and other uses. Maybe this technology will reduce
cetacean tinnitus. There is a boatbuilder in Canada who claims to have
worked this stuff out by trial and error to the point that his footfin
propelled kayak is faster than a normal one, but I don't know how much
of this is the efficiency of the fin and how much leg power vs arm
power.

--- In bolger@y..., "brucehallman" <brucehallman@y...> wrote:
snip
> I had never heard of this, but if the fins were flexible like the
> tail fin of a fish, it seems efficient like mother nature
intended...

My impression is that the body action would not be much different
than paddling a canoe and might work better facing foreward and
having a "Tee" handle on the end. I presume one steers by pushing to
either side. Not sure how one would stop or rudder? On a higher sided
boat one would be pushing down more than backwards... unless the
shaft was bowed:-)

Nels

--- In bolger@y..., "brucehallman" <brucehallman@y...> wrote:
> --- In bolger@y..., thomas dalzell <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
> > Thanks for posting that interesting article.
> ...ditto for me...plus I wonder what PCB thinks of it...
>
> My impression from the illustration is that the muscle action with
> power coming from the twist in ones torso would be a killer. ...Ow
my
> back!...
>

--- In bolger@y..., thomas dalzell <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:

> Thanks for posting that interesting article.

...ditto for me...plus I wonder what PCB thinks of it...

My impression from the illustration is that the muscle action with
power coming from the twist in ones torso would be a killer. ...Ow my
back!...

I feel that this "jelly fish pole" might be real handy on the deck of
a large boat in tight quarters when you need just to push the bow
around to reach the dock etc.., and such a pole could be made
telescoping and stow nicely too.

I bet that someone holds a patent on this idea.

> jellyfish have a recovery stroke

Conventional oars do their recovery stroke in the air which seems to
have less friction that the jellyfish oar recovery stroke in water.

> Another would be the Hobie Mirage which uses two fins
> working back and forth under the boat. This looks
> promising, and is continuous like a propellor.

I had never heard of this, but if the fins were flexible like the
tail fin of a fish, it seems efficient like mother nature intended...

Thanks for posting that interesting article. I can't
say that it sounds all that useful, except that the
claims of 2x improvement in speed are impressive.
What gets me is that it appears to work at best at the
speed of poling, that isn't bad, and might be good for
a heavy boat, but it in no way matches the potential
top speed of oars. Oars can work at a greater speed
than the body is able to uncoil, since the outboard
portion of the oar is longer than the inboard, and
there isn't all that much slippage in the planting of
the oar. The full uncoiling when using a sliding
seat, would be greater than with the jellyfish, and a
sliding seat (which might be adapted to the JF) uses
the leg muscles as well as arm speed. The jellyfish
would slip a little during its set. Both oars and the
jellyfish have a recovery stroke due to the reciprocal
nature of the stroke. More efficient options would
appear to be the various peddling propellor units.
Another would be the Hobie Mirage which uses two fins
working back and forth under the boat. This looks
promising, and is continuous like a propellor. Unlike
a propellor it naturally folds under the boat for
close approaches to the bank.

______________________________________________________________________
Post your ad for FREE!http://personals.yahoo.ca

It seems to me that processing machinery and propulsion are two
entirely different tasks. For some machinery, the limiting factor is
torque required at startup, and for this, electric motors are MUCH
better. Assuming that you don't start all 8 motors at once, the load
on the genset will be reasonable, too. Individual IC motors would be
loafing once the machinery was underway. THerefore I'm not surprised
you could reduce the rated capacity by 1:10 on your application. If
you used (expensive) torque converters and used an (expensive and
maybe labor intensive) multi speed transimission, I'm sure much
smaller IC motors could have been used, but I'll bet your solution is
better.

Marine propulsion is another story. You can bring up the throttle
slowly and the propellor allows slippage until you get going. You can
use gears if required.

As far as ratings go, it's true that if you use a converted car motor,
it probably can't handle continuous operation at anywhere near the
horsepower rating it is given FOR A CAR. However, these same engines
are derated for other uses. The boat motors (and airplane engines)I am
familiar with are not rated the same way. Typical use for outboard
motors may be at 3/4 or even full throttle. I know you can do this for
at least hours at a time, and the one motor I've used that died
probably succumbed to age and abuse (like a sinking), not wear. I am
not entirely familiar with how inboard motors are rated, but I'd be
very surprised if they weren't similarly rated, and one of the
articles referred to stated that diesels run below 50% of capacity
actually had problems.

I skimmed the articles and did not find anything like 1:10, tho I was
only skimming them. I'm not saying generator and electric motor
propulsion is bad, I'm just taking issue with the ratio (or any
generalised ratio). Any such ratio will only apply to certain
conditions of use, available gear ratios and propellors, etc.

--- In bolger@y..., "announcer97624" <cupp@k...> wrote:
> --- In bolger@y..., Mark Albanese <marka@h...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Not to spoil the fun, but I'm not sure this is quite accurate. 1
> shaft hp = 1 shaft hp.
> > The difference lies in the way motors are rated. The ICE is rated
> at maximum output; the
> > electric at what it can produce, "Continuously." snip
> > Mark
>
> I have managed a algae harvesting company and each internal
> combustion engine we replaced was replaced with that exact
> differential by electric AC motors. snip

> 1 shaft hp = 1 shaft hp.

I really don't enough about this for anyone to listent to me, but...

Rated hp is not the same as hp in use. A car may have an engine rated
at 200 hp, but use about 15 hp maintaining a constant 60 mph on a
level road. Rated hp for internal combustion engines is usually at a
much higher rpm than would be acceptable for constant use.

If I remember right, power is the product of torque and rpm. The
torque vs rpm curves for internal combustion engines and electric
motors are completely different. For IC engines, max torque is mid to
max rpm, and for electric motors, max torque is near zero rpm. All
this means that the comparision and substitution of the two types is
not completely straight-forward. The 10:1 ratio seems plausible.

Peter

--- In bolger@y..., Mark Albanese <marka@h...> wrote:

>
>
>
> Not to spoil the fun, but I'm not sure this is quite accurate. 1

shaft hp = 1 shaft hp.

> The difference lies in the way motors are rated. The ICE is rated

at maximum output; the

> electric at what it can produce, "Continuously." Electric motors

can max at two or three

> times the continuous rating to accelerate, if the controller is so

rated. They do develop

> maximum torque from startup, so I think that lets you swing a

larger wheel, but not ten

> times larger.
>
> If you have an example of 1:10, I'd be most interested to

understand it better.

>
> Mark

I have managed a algae harvesting company and each internal
combustion engine we replaced was replaced with that exact
differential by electric AC motors. We converted a 100ft long barge
with a huge genset and lowered our fuel consumption by 75% compared
to small diesel motors required on different stages of the processing.

I found that one 70 KW diesel electric system much easier to listen
to than the crescendos of eight small diesel units running
separately.

Here are some articles you might want to read.

John

http://www.doggersbank.com/articles/propulsion.htm

http://www.electroprop.com/motor_specs.html

announcer97624 wrote:

> one horsepower electric equals a ten horsepower internal combustion
> engine.
> John

Not to spoil the fun, but I'm not sure this is quite accurate. 1 shaft hp = 1 shaft hp.
The difference lies in the way motors are rated. The ICE is rated at maximum output; the
electric at what it can produce, "Continuously." Electric motors can max at two or three
times the continuous rating to accelerate, if the controller is so rated. They do develop
maximum torque from startup, so I think that lets you swing a larger wheel, but not ten
times larger.

If you have an example of 1:10, I'd be most interested to understand it better.

Mark

I strongly suspect this is not true, at least when cruising as
opposed to accelerating. It may be true that a properly propped 1hp
electric motor on a slow boat will do as well as an egregiously poorly
propped 2 stroke 10hp piston engine with no reduction gears. 1hp = 550
ft-lbs/sec, whatever the motor type. It may also be true that for a
short while you could overprop the electric and get more out of it, or
that at first it will accelerate up to speed faster, so that for a
thruster electric may be better, but that rating is for a reason. Work
is work. Burnt insulation smells bad.

--- In bolger@y..., "announcer97624" <cupp@k...> wrote:
snip Builders must remember that
> electric horsepower is not equal with a piston engine horsepower. A
> one horsepower electric equals a ten horsepower internal combustion
> engine. So two submersible 2 HP pump motors run by a 8 KW genset
> would be more than adequate for propulsion to say 10 knots. Much
less
> expensively than new outboards or other alternatives.
>
> John

--- In bolger@y..., stephensonhw@a... wrote:

> Ch. 29 of Roger C. Taylor's "Good Boats" deals with "Mahdee", a

53'

> flush-decked 2-masted schooner launched in 1931. For anyone who

happens to

> have a copy lying around -- she was fully described in the February

1932

> issue of "Yachting" magazine.
>
> Auxiliary power was two Winton petrol engines well forward, running

a pair

> of 10KW generators which charged a bank of batteries sufficient to

run an

> electric motor attached to a single propeller at half power (three

knots) for

> an hour with the engines off, or indefinitely while the engines

were running.

> Cost of this installation, in Depression dollars, was $9,200.
>
> The owner said that if he were to do it again, he would eliminate

the

> batteries and run a 110-volt system, for the sake of simplicity.
>
> Howard.

Some modern Yachts are powered by gensets running electric motors
set on gear boxes. The gear boxes will typically have two or three
motors installed and most of these yachts have two propellers. This
design is efficient and expensive. Another idea would be to use
several submersible water pump motors with rheostats that use Kort
type 37 nozzles on them that are steerable. This would allow great
speed and power to work against any windage problems a builder would
create with their super structures. Builders must remember that
electric horsepower is not equal with a piston engine horsepower. A
one horsepower electric equals a ten horsepower internal combustion
engine. So two submersible 2 HP pump motors run by a 8 KW genset
would be more than adequate for propulsion to say 10 knots. Much less
expensively than new outboards or other alternatives.

John

Ch. 29 of Roger C. Taylor's "Good Boats" deals with "Mahdee", a 53'
flush-decked 2-masted schooner launched in 1931. For anyone who happens to
have a copy lying around -- she was fully described in the February 1932
issue of "Yachting" magazine.

Auxilliary power was two Winton petrol engines well forward, running a pair
of 10KW generators which charged a bank of batteries sufficient to run an
electric motor attached to a single propellor at half power (three knots) for
an hour with the engines off, or indefinitely while the engines were running.
Cost of this installation, in Depression dollars, was $9,200.

The owner said that if he were to do it again, he would eliminate the
batteries and run a 110-volt system, for the sake of simplicity.

Howard.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In bolger@y..., "recree8" <arvent@h...> wrote:

> Thanks Jeff for the clarification. Have you ever heard of anyone
> using an elecric drive in the stern, a genset in the bow and a row

> batteries in a box keel? What am I missing with such a set-up?

Seems

> it would offer convenience without a lot of machinery really.
> If it doesn't make any sense just ignore the query.
>

The possible problem with this is efficiency. You are going from a
gas/diesel generator to battery storage to an electric motor. Each
step along the way uses energy in the conversion:

1. Gasoline/diesel to power IC motor.(change chemical to mechanical
energy)

Gasoline/Diesel motor to drive genset.(change mechanical energy to
electrial energy)

Genset to power charger. (modify voltage and or phase from ac to dc)

Charger to charge batteries. (change electrical energy to chemical
electric storage)

Batteries to drive controller.(change chemical electric storage to
electricity and modify voltage)

Controller to power motor.(loss to resistance or PWM)

Each step along the way generates heat and consumes energy (reduces
your MPG).

Another problem is if you intend the genset to directly drive the
motor, is finding one that produces enough wattage to drive the
motor, accessories and charge the battery bank simultaneously. If
you can find one with the capacity to do that, it will be expensive
and large and heavy.

An alternative to this would be to use a motor to power a genset for
accessory use and to drive a hydraulic pump for a hydraulic drive.
The most efficient drives in order are: direct with a thrust bearing
(no reverse), direct drive with a trans, v-drive, stern drive,
hydraulic prop drive and jet drive.

--- In bolger@y..., <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:

> Not a bad buy but unfortunately the 250 VDC would be hard to
> come by on a boat.

The Big Blue 251D welder puts out 250A at 40VDC or 300A at 32VDC, the
heck with the batteries, just fire up the welder when you want to go.
I wonder which electric motor would be right for this voltage?

> Some large U.S. warships built in the 1930's used a
> combination of steam
> turbine generators and electric motors. I've read
> conflicting accounts, of
> doubtful reliability, for the reasons for the choice
> of this particular
> configuration in those particular vessels but
> nothing that would indicate
> that they did not perform quite adequately. These
> vessels did not have and
> could not have used any batteries for primary
> propulsion.
>

Actually, that's the exact setup that modern nuclear
warships operate. The nuke plant heats water to steam
to turn a turbine to spin a generator. I know
submarines have massive battery banks, I don't know
the details of how they work- and even if I did, I
probably wouldn't be able to tell you about it;)

MFX in MN

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

> --- In bolger@y..., <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
>
>> electric motors are under 25HP. Affordable ones are 5 HP.
>
> Here is a 41hp motor selling for $975.
>
>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1725011442
>
>

Not a bad buy but unfortunately the 250 VDC would be hard to
come by on a boat. That would take 21 12V batteries hooked in
series.

Jeff

In a message dated 4/26/02 10:44:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
arvent@...writes:

> Have you ever heard of anyone
> using an elecric drive in the stern, a genset in the bow and a row of
> batteries in a box keel?

(Not Jeff), and

Not quite, but close. I think it may have been a boat in WoodenBoat some
years ago. No box keel, however. It was a rather large power cruiser from the
'20's or '30's that used a pair of gensets, a large battery bank and electric
motors to the propellors. If I recall correctly, the boat was commissioned by
an engineer (sounds probable) and was something of a "gold-plater". I'm
pretty sure that the electric motors were connected to conventional shafts,
and do not recall that the placement of the engines was anything out of the
ordinary, but memory is fallible. The initial cost of the generators, motors
and batteries was much higher than the cost of a mechanical transmission and
there are efficiency losses in this set up. Obviously the owner seemed to
think the trade-off's were worth the extra expense.

Some large U.S. warships built in the 1930's used a combination of steam
turbine generators and electric motors. I've read conflicting accounts, of
doubtful reliability, for the reasons for the choice of this particular
configuration in those particular vessels but nothing that would indicate
that they did not perform quite adequately. These vessels did not have and
could not have used any batteries for primary propulsion.

Keep scheming!
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In bolger@y..., <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:

> electric motors are under 25HP. Affordable ones are 5 HP.

Here is a 41hp motor selling for $975.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1725011442

--- In bolger@y..., "recree8" <arvent@h...> wrote:

> using an elecric drive in the stern, a genset in the bow and
> batteries in a box keel?

As I mentioned earlier, I was thinking that the Deutz F3L-1011 diesel
engine, in favor with Phil Bolger and Susanne Altenburger right now
is commonly used in industrial equipment, like the Miller Big Blue
251D. Why not buy a welder [perhaps at a bankruptcy auction] instead
of just a bare engine?

http://www.millerwelds.com/main/products/enginedriven/M01500/

Also, "living aboard" involves in part the need to scrounge a living,
and my theory is that in every marina everywhere there is a steady
need for repairing things with a welder. [Not to mention if your
boat was a 'for real' business, then there could be income tax
advantages.] If you could have the welding machine serve double
duty as the power source for the boat, then even better.

First I was thinking, to have some mechanical connection from the
welding machine to a drive shaft and propellor, but as I think about
it more, driving an electric motor with the 250 Amp welder might be
more simple.

Judging from the Dakota sketches I have been looking at, the weight
of the motor seems to need to be in the stern, because the bow needs
to run high.

I also agree with some who say to use Gel batteries instead
of 'normal' flooded cell batteries because of the hazard of toxic
fumes where you are living. Though they cost twice a much, and are
more easy to damage if over charged.

In a message dated 4/25/02 9:16:57 AM Central Daylight Time,
boatbuilding@...writes:

> My curiosity was if it could handle both, rotational and forward thrust.
> I'm sure the bearing could but maybe the yoke can't unless it grossly
> oversized.
>

I really don't have a clue on this. I just thought the pick-up truck analogy
wasn't really despositive. I think we need some full-sized, full-powered, in
the water experiments!

Once upon a time, I had replacement bearings press-fit on the original
U-joint for a '49 Ford. It was the only time I ever got up close and personal
with a U-joint. My initial reaction to the notion was to think that
transmitting thrust loads through one would be analogous to pushing on a
chain. That this analogy is, at best, no improvement to the pickup truck
analogy should be obvious.

The examples I've seen illustrated using this scheme have been quite small
boats, very, very low-powered by contemporary standards. I suspect this sort
of set-up became obsolescent in that application shortly after Ol' Ole
Evinrude marketed his first "knuckle-buster". (Probably not obsolete -
somewhere Weston Farmer describes this type as having only two speeds - "off"
and "full speed ahead". Perhaps he exaggerated a bit.)

The examples referred to all ran their U-joints "naked" in the water behind a
conventional stuffing box on the keel. I don't know if this is what you have
in mind. If so, this type of set-up would seem to raise some issues regarding
lubrication, fouling (both the biological and line-snagging kind), corrosion
and inspection.

Keep on scheming!
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
(blowing wet snow in Alexandria @ 9:30 A.M. today as I was dropping off a
(non-Bolger) boat! I guess this is compensation for our unusually mild
"winter" this year.)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Thanks Jeff for the clarification. Have you ever
> heard of anyone
> using an elecric drive in the stern, a genset in the
> bow and a row of
> batteries in a box keel? What am I missing with such
> a set-up? Seems
> it would offer convenience without a lot of
> machinery really.
> If it doesn't make any sense just ignore the query.

The ship (Balsam-class Coast Guard buoy tender) I do
my reserve time on has 2 gensets and one huge electric
motor at about amidships, a diesel genset in the bow
to power a bow thruster, and not too many batteries.
I'd be very concerned about storing batteries in a box
keel, one beaching/grounding (or not even that) and
you could have toxic fumes wafting through your living
spaces without ever knowing. Maybe in a place that
lends itself more readily to inspections would be a
better place for batteries- in banks along the
blukheads amidships? A box keel does seem like a good
place for fuel and water storage, though, and lends
itself to easy trim adjustments. I recall seeing a
trailerable cruising tugboat yacht (if that makes any
sense) with enlarged bilge keels to hold fuel and
water. I had recalled it as being a MacNaughton
design, but I couldn't find it on their website.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

> > Mr. Buehler also spends some time talking about
> hydraulic
> > transmission as a way to put the engine in a
> convenient
> > location, eliminate some alignment issues, and
> isolate
> > vibration. Anyone know any more than what's in
> his book?

Any thought on a similar setup using an electric motor
instead of hydro? Naval ships have been using
diesel-electric propulsion for years (at least since
the 1940s, when my ship was built) with good results.
No reason it couldn't work on an adequately-sized
'small boat'.

MFX

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com

> Thanks Jeff for the clarification. Have you ever heard of
> anyone
> using an elecric drive in the stern, a genset in the bow and
> a row of batteries in a box keel? What am I missing with
> such a set-up? Seems it would offer convenience without a
> lot of machinery really.
> If it doesn't make any sense just ignore the query.
>
> Nels

Yes there are several I've seen on the web. There is no reason
it wouldn't work. At least for hull speed limited boats. Most
electric motors are under 25HP. Affordable ones are 5 HP.

Batteries for ballast, genset for all the power you need with
the batteries to slip quietly along, I like the idea.

Jeff

> Mr. Buehler also spends some time talking about hydraulic
> transmission as a way to put the engine in a convenient
> location, eliminate some alignment issues, and isolate
> vibration. Anyone know any more than what's in his book?
>

There was a time that I was hot and heavy on his Pilgrim
design. It's a fully Oceam capable power cruising dory, though
light in DL as Ocean cruisers go.

I had several email conversations about getting a hydraulic
option. Basically it's a high volume hydraulic pump attached
to the engine. Hydraulic lines run to a hydraulic motor on the
propshaft. You get infinitely adjustable shaft speeds in
forward or reverse. The engine would run at constant RPM which
diesel love doing. Problems where in the heat generated by the
hydraulic fluid though an inter-cooler would work. Another
issue is in the efficiency. A prop directly driven off the
transmission is more effecient than running hydraulics through
a pump and then a motor.

All problems could be worked out, just depends on how bad you
want the engine placed someplace unique on the boat.

BTW, he now has the Pilgrim working on an outboard with 25HP as
an option to the 10HP Saab he originally envisioned. Plan
prices have gone from $300 to $900 so it must be getting
popular.

Jeff

The double bed sized box in the number 3 scan is -- ta da! -- a double
bed. This version is for weekend cruising with two couples or a family
of four. The middle of the boat is under cover, but open on the sides
and acts as privacy buffer between the two sleeping areas each of which
has a toilet. There is just sitting headroom over the bunks at either
end. There are waterways alongside the aft trunk cabin for walking back
to the stern.

Vince Chew

> Can anybody figure out what the "double bed sized" rectangle near

the

> stern in version 3 is?

The double bed in the owner's stateroom?

Thanks Jeff for the clarification. Have you ever heard of anyone
using an elecric drive in the stern, a genset in the bow and a row of
batteries in a box keel? What am I missing with such a set-up? Seems
it would offer convenience without a lot of machinery really.
If it doesn't make any sense just ignore the query.

Nels

--- In bolger@y..., "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
> The thrust from the prop is pushed forward through the prop shaft.
On a
> standard installation, that thrust is transferred through to the
> transmission which has a lubricated thrust bearing built into it.
From
> there through the transmission and engine mounts to the hull. This
requires
> a good alignment from prop to transmission or things wear out fast.
>
> Even with a U-joint set up, the thrust has to go through the whole
shaft and
> linkage to the transmission to get the hull.
>
> You can mount a thrust bearing somewhere in-between that is
connected to the
> hull. At that point there would be no forward thrust to the
transmission
> since the thrust bearing is transferring the load to the hull.
>
> George Buehler has designed a number of big power cruisers with the
engine
> located in the bow. Using a series of shafts pillow block bearing
and
> U-joints, he gets the power back to the prop. The bow is a nice
place to
> put an engine. It's generally poor storage and bunk space so why
not an
> engine room. Makes for a large master suite aft without the engine
room
> heat and noise.
>
> Jeff

FWIW I just dropped gif scans of the five configurations of Dakota
into
http://www.hallman.org/bolger/Dakota/

Version 1 shows a driveshaft and prop.

Can anybody figure out what the "double bed sized" rectangle near the
stern in version 3 is?

>
>George Buehler has designed a number of big power cruisers with the engine
>located in the bow. Using a series of shafts pillow block bearing and
>U-joints, he gets the power back to the prop. The bow is a nice place to
>put an engine. It's generally poor storage and bunk space so why not an
>engine room. Makes for a large master suite aft without the engine room
>heat and noise.

Mr. Buehler also spends some time talking about hydraulic
transmission as a way to put the engine in a convenient location,
eliminate some alignment issues, and isolate vibration. Anyone know
any more than what's in his book?

YIBB,

David

C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
(212) 247-0296

Seeing this is a group dedicated to discussing Bolger designs, it might be a
good time to mention that PCB's 21' Marina Cruiser design (BWAOM Ch. 36)
places the engine under the double berth in the bows. Looks like a
conventional shaft drive.

Howard

In a message dated 27-04-02 3:23:58 AM E. Australia Standard Time,
boatbuilding@...writes:

> George Buehler has designed a number of big power cruisers with the engine
> located in the bow. Using a series of shafts pillow block bearing and
> U-joints, he gets the power back to the prop. The bow is a nice place to
> put an engine. It's generally poor storage and bunk space so why not an
> engine room. Makes for a large master suite aft without the engine room
> heat and noise.
>
> Jeff
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The thrust from the prop is pushed forward through the prop shaft. On a
standard installation, that thrust is transferred through to the
transmission which has a lubricated thrust bearing built into it. From
there through the transmission and engine mounts to the hull. This requires
a good alignment from prop to transmission or things wear out fast.

Even with a U-joint set up, the thrust has to go through the whole shaft and
linkage to the transmission to get the hull.

You can mount a thrust bearing somewhere in-between that is connected to the
hull. At that point there would be no forward thrust to the transmission
since the thrust bearing is transferring the load to the hull.

George Buehler has designed a number of big power cruisers with the engine
located in the bow. Using a series of shafts pillow block bearing and
U-joints, he gets the power back to the prop. The bow is a nice place to
put an engine. It's generally poor storage and bunk space so why not an
engine room. Makes for a large master suite aft without the engine room
heat and noise.

Jeff

Would not most of the thrust forces from the prop be absorbed by the
boat as it is being pushed forward? To me there should be hardly any
applied to the U-joint, only the rotational twisting or torque force.

In fact why could not one use an extremely strong flexible cable as a
driveshaft? I seem to recall a compact car built by GM under the
Buick banner that had a flexible driveshaft.

Nels

--- In bolger@y..., "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
> Thanks! This is as I expected. I had no idea of numbers but was
fairly
> sure that U-Joint from say my Ford 1/2 Ton would handle anything a
prop on a
> 130 HP could do. Especially since there is no shock loads like
letting a
> clutch out or wheel hop.
>
> Jeff
>

Thanks! This is as I expected. I had no idea of numbers but was fairly
sure that U-Joint from say my Ford 1/2 Ton would handle anything a prop on a
130 HP could do. Especially since there is no shock loads like letting a
clutch out or wheel hop.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yosemit3" <yosemit3@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 11:38 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Re: Dakota, I want one!

> 1]The bearing in a "u"joint doesn't know if it is transmitting
> torque[rotation] or end thrust. all the same.
> 2]quite a few cars with independent rear suspension use the "half
> shafts"[shaft from the differential to each rear wheel] as a load bearing
> member of the suspension. [example: Corvette, 1963 and up to present]
> 3]a large v8 can develop more than 400 ft/lbs of torque. As multiplied
> through the torque converter and transmission, it will approach 2000#
> torque, since the average "u"joint is about 4" across, it's bearings are
> seeing about 6000# force[of course half that for each bearing]. I don't
> think the thrust from a prop is going to affect it much.
> 4]include at leasst 2 degrees mis alignment so the "u"joint's movement
keepe
> it lubed.
>
> Yosemit3

1]The bearing in a "u"joint doesn't know if it is transmitting
torque[rotation] or end thrust. all the same.
2]quite a few cars with independent rear suspension use the "half
shafts"[shaft from the differential to each rear wheel] as a load bearing
member of the suspension. [example: Corvette, 1963 and up to present]
3]a large v8 can develop more than 400 ft/lbs of torque. As multiplied
through the torque converter and transmission, it will approach 2000#
torque, since the average "u"joint is about 4" across, it's bearings are
seeing about 6000# force[of course half that for each bearing]. I don't
think the thrust from a prop is going to affect it much.
4]include at leasst 2 degrees mis alignment so the "u"joint's movement keepe
it lubed.

Yosemit3

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:37:35 EDT
From:wmrpage@...
Subject: Re: Re: Dakota, I want one!

In a message dated 4/24/02 9:44:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
boatbuilding@...writes:

> Think of
> 3/4 ton pickup pulling a 7000 lb. trailer. The side thrust loads on the
> u-joint are enormous.
>

I dunno. What is this "side-thrust"?

A propeller shaft has to transmit the thrust of the prop along its long axis
to the thrust bearing in the transmission. The drive shaft on a pickup
"floats" fore-and-aft on a splined connection and doesn't transmit any
thrust
along the shaft. The reaction loads of pulling a trailer and pushing a truck
are transmitted from the tires via the rear axle and suspension to the
chassis. The driveshaft serves only to transmit torque (rotation) from the
transmission tail shaft to the pinion gear on the differential. The U-joints
permit this to happen despite the changing angles between the tail shaft and
the differential. They do a pretty satisfactory job of that. Whether they
would perform as satisfactorily if they also had to absorb an axial thrust
equal to the load being pushed seems doubtful to me, but I'm just blowing
hot
air.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

Or get a couple of CV joints off a wrecked Honda front end in the
junkyard.....

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Blunck [mailto:boatbuilding@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 10:53 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

Most of those are in excess of $2000. I've done a little research on
them
and they combine a thrust bearing in the design.

On that thought, one could put a thrust bearing in front of the U-joint
but
then it all gets too complicated.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Romasco" <dromasco@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

> At the risk of stirring the pot to excess, what about
constant-velocity
> (CV) joints in place of the U-joints? Seems to me they'd do just fine
> with multi-axis thrust forces. There's an outfit or two that sell a
> drive train that replaces the prop shaft with a jointed set of links.
> Ahhh, never having to align the Iron Beast again....
>
> David Romasco
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Blunck [mailto:boatbuilding@...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 10:13 AM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!
>
>
> I don't do well at explaining my thoughts and you have done a much
> better
> job. My point though is that it is rotational on the U-Joints, I
called
> it
> side thrust, but either way the torque/thrust is on the joint yoke
> itself.
> My curiosity was if it could handle both, rotational and forward
thrust.
> I'm sure the bearing could but maybe the yoke can't unless it grossly
> oversized.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <wmrpage@...>
> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!
>
>
> > In a message dated 4/24/02 9:44:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
> >boatbuilding@...writes:
> >
> >
> > > Think of
> > > 3/4 ton pickup pulling a 7000 lb. trailer. The side thrust loads
on
> the
> > > u-joint are enormous.
> > >
> >
> > I dunno. What is this "side-thrust"?
> >
> > A propeller shaft has to transmit the thrust of the prop along its
> long
> axis
> > to the thrust bearing in the transmission. The drive shaft on a
pickup
> > "floats" fore-and-aft on a splined connection and doesn't transmit
any
> thrust
> > along the shaft. The reaction loads of pulling a trailer and pushing
a
> truck
> > are transmitted from the tires via the rear axle and suspension to
the
> > chassis. The driveshaft serves only to transmit torque (rotation)
from
> the
> > transmission tail shaft to the pinion gear on the differential. The
> U-joints
> > permit this to happen despite the changing angles between the tail
> shaft
> and
> > the differential. They do a pretty satisfactory job of that. Whether
> they
> > would perform as satisfactorily if they also had to absorb an axial
> thrust
> > equal to the load being pushed seems doubtful to me, but I'm just
> blowing
> hot
> > air.
> >
> > Ciao for Niao,
> > Bill in MN
> >
> >
> > [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 to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
> [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 to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

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
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Most of those are in excess of $2000. I've done a little research on them
and they combine a thrust bearing in the design.

On that thought, one could put a thrust bearing in front of the U-joint but
then it all gets too complicated.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Romasco" <dromasco@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 8:23 AM
Subject: RE: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

> At the risk of stirring the pot to excess, what about constant-velocity
> (CV) joints in place of the U-joints? Seems to me they'd do just fine
> with multi-axis thrust forces. There's an outfit or two that sell a
> drive train that replaces the prop shaft with a jointed set of links.
> Ahhh, never having to align the Iron Beast again....
>
> David Romasco
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Blunck [mailto:boatbuilding@...]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 10:13 AM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!
>
>
> I don't do well at explaining my thoughts and you have done a much
> better
> job. My point though is that it is rotational on the U-Joints, I called
> it
> side thrust, but either way the torque/thrust is on the joint yoke
> itself.
> My curiosity was if it could handle both, rotational and forward thrust.
> I'm sure the bearing could but maybe the yoke can't unless it grossly
> oversized.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <wmrpage@...>
> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!
>
>
> > In a message dated 4/24/02 9:44:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
> >boatbuilding@...writes:
> >
> >
> > > Think of
> > > 3/4 ton pickup pulling a 7000 lb. trailer. The side thrust loads on
> the
> > > u-joint are enormous.
> > >
> >
> > I dunno. What is this "side-thrust"?
> >
> > A propeller shaft has to transmit the thrust of the prop along its
> long
> axis
> > to the thrust bearing in the transmission. The drive shaft on a pickup
> > "floats" fore-and-aft on a splined connection and doesn't transmit any
> thrust
> > along the shaft. The reaction loads of pulling a trailer and pushing a
> truck
> > are transmitted from the tires via the rear axle and suspension to the
> > chassis. The driveshaft serves only to transmit torque (rotation) from
> the
> > transmission tail shaft to the pinion gear on the differential. The
> U-joints
> > permit this to happen despite the changing angles between the tail
> shaft
> and
> > the differential. They do a pretty satisfactory job of that. Whether
> they
> > would perform as satisfactorily if they also had to absorb an axial
> thrust
> > equal to the load being pushed seems doubtful to me, but I'm just
> blowing
> hot
> > air.
> >
> > Ciao for Niao,
> > Bill in MN
> >
> >
> > [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 to
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
> [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/
>
>

At the risk of stirring the pot to excess, what about constant-velocity
(CV) joints in place of the U-joints? Seems to me they'd do just fine
with multi-axis thrust forces. There's an outfit or two that sell a
drive train that replaces the prop shaft with a jointed set of links.
Ahhh, never having to align the Iron Beast again....

David Romasco

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Blunck [mailto:boatbuilding@...]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 10:13 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

I don't do well at explaining my thoughts and you have done a much
better
job. My point though is that it is rotational on the U-Joints, I called
it
side thrust, but either way the torque/thrust is on the joint yoke
itself.
My curiosity was if it could handle both, rotational and forward thrust.
I'm sure the bearing could but maybe the yoke can't unless it grossly
oversized.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <wmrpage@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

> In a message dated 4/24/02 9:44:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
>boatbuilding@...writes:
>
>
> > Think of
> > 3/4 ton pickup pulling a 7000 lb. trailer. The side thrust loads on
the
> > u-joint are enormous.
> >
>
> I dunno. What is this "side-thrust"?
>
> A propeller shaft has to transmit the thrust of the prop along its
long
axis
> to the thrust bearing in the transmission. The drive shaft on a pickup
> "floats" fore-and-aft on a splined connection and doesn't transmit any
thrust
> along the shaft. The reaction loads of pulling a trailer and pushing a
truck
> are transmitted from the tires via the rear axle and suspension to the
> chassis. The driveshaft serves only to transmit torque (rotation) from
the
> transmission tail shaft to the pinion gear on the differential. The
U-joints
> permit this to happen despite the changing angles between the tail
shaft
and
> the differential. They do a pretty satisfactory job of that. Whether
they
> would perform as satisfactorily if they also had to absorb an axial
thrust
> equal to the load being pushed seems doubtful to me, but I'm just
blowing
hot
> air.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
> [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 to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

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
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I don't do well at explaining my thoughts and you have done a much better
job. My point though is that it is rotational on the U-Joints, I called it
side thrust, but either way the torque/thrust is on the joint yoke itself.
My curiosity was if it could handle both, rotational and forward thrust.
I'm sure the bearing could but maybe the yoke can't unless it grossly
oversized.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <wmrpage@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

> In a message dated 4/24/02 9:44:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
>boatbuilding@...writes:
>
>
> > Think of
> > 3/4 ton pickup pulling a 7000 lb. trailer. The side thrust loads on the
> > u-joint are enormous.
> >
>
> I dunno. What is this "side-thrust"?
>
> A propeller shaft has to transmit the thrust of the prop along its long
axis
> to the thrust bearing in the transmission. The drive shaft on a pickup
> "floats" fore-and-aft on a splined connection and doesn't transmit any
thrust
> along the shaft. The reaction loads of pulling a trailer and pushing a
truck
> are transmitted from the tires via the rear axle and suspension to the
> chassis. The driveshaft serves only to transmit torque (rotation) from the
> transmission tail shaft to the pinion gear on the differential. The
U-joints
> permit this to happen despite the changing angles between the tail shaft
and
> the differential. They do a pretty satisfactory job of that. Whether they
> would perform as satisfactorily if they also had to absorb an axial thrust
> equal to the load being pushed seems doubtful to me, but I'm just blowing
hot
> air.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
> [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/
>
>

In a message dated 4/24/02 9:44:09 AM Central Daylight Time,
boatbuilding@...writes:

> Think of
> 3/4 ton pickup pulling a 7000 lb. trailer. The side thrust loads on the
> u-joint are enormous.
>

I dunno. What is this "side-thrust"?

A propeller shaft has to transmit the thrust of the prop along its long axis
to the thrust bearing in the transmission. The drive shaft on a pickup
"floats" fore-and-aft on a splined connection and doesn't transmit any thrust
along the shaft. The reaction loads of pulling a trailer and pushing a truck
are transmitted from the tires via the rear axle and suspension to the
chassis. The driveshaft serves only to transmit torque (rotation) from the
transmission tail shaft to the pinion gear on the differential. The U-joints
permit this to happen despite the changing angles between the tail shaft and
the differential. They do a pretty satisfactory job of that. Whether they
would perform as satisfactorily if they also had to absorb an axial thrust
equal to the load being pushed seems doubtful to me, but I'm just blowing hot
air.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Read "The Dory Book" (by John Gardner, as I recall)...
his plans for a St Pierre dory contain a instructions
for a retractable driveshaft for a 1-cylinder
make-or-break engine. Very interesting... I've got
the offsets for a couple of boats in there. I'd
recommend it to everyone on this list.

-MFX

--- Jeff Blunck <boatbuilding@...> wrote:

> Thanks for diagrams. I've often wondered about
> making up a simple drive
> shaft with flexible u-joints that would allow the
> shaft to run straight in
> line with the transmission, but under a load of
> hitting a sandbar or object
> would allow the shaft to pop-up. Also when anchored
> or at dock, one could
> lift the whole unit clear.
>
> I actually had a full set of blue prints to make
> this type of drive line for
> a saildrive on the Flyaway. Ill be darned if I can
> find it now. Any Ideas?
>
> Jeff
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> 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
>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
http://games.yahoo.com/

I don't believe an Alpha I or II could handle the torque of diesel unless is
was a very low HP. They are designed for gas engines where the engine
builds it HP in RPMs. A diesel puts out a lot of torque and lower RPMs.
I'd bet you would shell out the gears fast.

Jeff

--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 4/23/02 3:14:29 PM Central Daylight Time,

> > What is wrong with a simple drive shaft and prop?

> assemble an engine, transmission, driveshaft, hangar
> bearing, propellor... I think this would exceed the cost

I have come to this same conclusion, bad idea.

====

I wonder what trouble might occur trying to mate a used diesel engine
to a Alpha-One sterndrive?

And, looking again at the DBD sterndrive model CD 300... which
appears much more simple than the Mercruiser, OMC, and the Sonic
sterndrive. Does anybody know what the DBD sterndrives cost? Are
there any "gotcha's" with the DBD sterndrives?

> I don't think that U-joints are designed to take thrust loads. The concept
> has enjoyed some minimal commercial exploitation beginning early in the

20th

> Century ("Dis-Pro", etc.). I don't think that any of those ventures

enjoyed

> any lasting commercial success.

Actually a U-Joint is designed perfectly for thrust. All needle bearings in
the caps. The key would be to size it enough that the thrust forward could
be handled by the yoke instead of the normal side thrust loads. Think of
3/4 ton pickup pulling a 7000 lb. trailer. The side thrust loads on the
u-joint are enormous.

Sounds like a lot of experimentation for me though.

Jeff

I think a Yanmar 30hp is about $5M. Torque is where diesel comes into its own. Smaller engine,
greater torque, larger wheel, power and speed with less fuel. I haven't followed the "state" boat
developement, but if Dakota has significant rocker in hull, it's not going very fast anyway. Clyde

Jeff Blunck wrote:

> Let's not forget price! Generally for the same HP, a diesel will cost
> double or at least near to that amount. If the Mercruiser is $6000, then
> comparable diesel would be over $10,000 maybe $12,000. Now that will buy a
> lot of fuel maybe pay for all of it on a two year cruise.
>
> Also, noisy! A gas engine will be relatively silent compared to a thumping,
> banging, knocking diesel. I would be hard for me to imagine slipping along
> a river bank watching wildlife having a diesel rumbling away.
>
> Jeff
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "TOMB" <tbrowning@...>
> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!
>
> > Sam Devlin puts 135 Volvo I/O Duo Prop Diesel engines in his Surfscooter
> > 25's with apparent good results. I have no Ideal of weight or cost.
> >
>
>
> 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/

In a message dated 4/23/02 3:14:29 PM Central Daylight Time,
brucehallman@...writes:

> What is wrong with a simple drive shaft and prop?
>

There is obviously nothing "wrong" with this approach. This is how most
vessels of any size get where they are going. For small craft, both O/B's and
I/O's have significant advantages as far as ease of installation is concerned
- including a degree of mutual design compatibility.

In a conventional inboard engine set-up, the engine must be placed much
further forward to get a satisfactory shaft angle than it would be in an I/O.
This has significance for performance when planning, which is why high
performance inboard-powered boats use "V-drives", "surface-drives",
"jet-drives" or I/O configurations.

The ease of installation factor has obviously given O/B and I/O units a very
great advantage in the marketplace. If you wish to duplicate the performance,
you would need to assemble an engine, transmission, driveshaft, hangar
bearing, propellor and perhaps other accessories individualized for your
boat. I think this would exceed the cost of using a mass-marketed unit by a
substantial factor. In any case, if the boat wasn't designed for straight
inboard power, it would probably be unsuitable, at worst, or require
substantial modification, at best, to be converted to such a configuration.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 4/23/02 5:06:22 PM Central Daylight Time,
boatbuilding@...writes:

> I've often wondered about making up a simple drive
> shaft with flexible u-joints that would allow the shaft to run straight in
> line with the transmission, but under a load of hitting a sandbar or object
> would allow the shaft to pop-up.

I don't think that U-joints are designed to take thrust loads. The concept
has enjoyed some minimal commercial exploitation beginning early in the 20th
Century ("Dis-Pro", etc.). I don't think that any of those ventures enjoyed
any lasting commercial success.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>--- In bolger@y..., David Ryan <david@c...> wrote:
>>...I've wondered if building 1/2
>> topside panels from lamintated and staggered 1/4" ACX might not be
>a
>> clever way to get two "A" faces to work on and eliminate the
>> buttblocks as well...
>
>David,
>
>Been there, done that. The additional labor and expense involved in
>laminating the two layers of plywood make the exercise highly
>questionable unless the hull shape requires it. The technique usually
>requires copious amounts of suitably thickened epoxy, as well as
>millions of staples which must later be removed. Vacuum bagging may
>serve as an alternative to the staples, but it's still a hassle. I
>don't really see any point to it for a boat like I60,
>

Well scratch that idea!

Thanks for the tip.

-D

C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
(212) 247-0296

--- In bolger@y..., David Ryan <david@c...> wrote:

>...I've wondered if building 1/2
> topside panels from lamintated and staggered 1/4" ACX might not be

> clever way to get two "A" faces to work on and eliminate the
> buttblocks as well...

David,

Been there, done that. The additional labor and expense involved in
laminating the two layers of plywood make the exercise highly
questionable unless the hull shape requires it. The technique usually
requires copious amounts of suitably thickened epoxy, as well as
millions of staples which must later be removed. Vacuum bagging may
serve as an alternative to the staples, but it's still a hassle. I
don't really see any point to it for a boat like I60,

porky

Now, Bruce.... doesn't $3,295 sound sweet?

-----Original Message-----
From: brucehallman [mailto:brucehallman@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 5:26 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

--- In bolger@y..., "David Romasco" <dromasco@g...> wrote:
>> " Now, a China/Hardy diesel might be different! :) "
> I doubt it. ...The Hardy diesel is an incredibly...

37hp for $3,295 at:

http://www.chinadiesel.net/mrn/395_marine.htm

===
[sorry about the earlier double post]

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
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In bolger@y..., "David Romasco" <dromasco@g...> wrote:

>> " Now, a China/Hardy diesel might be different! :) "
> I doubt it. ...The Hardy diesel is an incredibly...

37hp for $3,295 at:

http://www.chinadiesel.net/mrn/395_marine.htm

===
[sorry about the earlier double post]

Thanks for diagrams. I've often wondered about making up a simple drive
shaft with flexible u-joints that would allow the shaft to run straight in
line with the transmission, but under a load of hitting a sandbar or object
would allow the shaft to pop-up. Also when anchored or at dock, one could
lift the whole unit clear.

I actually had a full set of blue prints to make this type of drive line for
a saildrive on the Flyaway. Ill be darned if I can find it now. Any Ideas?

Jeff

" Now, a China/Hardy
diesel might be different! :) "

I doubt it. The air-cooled unit adds the air flow noise to a diesel
block that is unencumbered with a cooling jacket. The Hardy diesel is
an incredibly heavy slow-turning unit. Slow + mass = more of a thump
than a bang (you see how scientific this can be). My money would be on
the Hardy, although this begs the question of whether you'd have a wet
exhaust on the Hardy vs. a dry stack on the Deutz.... A dry stack can be
a hard neighbor to live with for long in small craft, despite the many
empirical advantages over the wet exhaust.

David Romasco

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
065791:HM/A=1042587/R=0/*http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=2915
0849&siteid=39282504&bfpage=account>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=1042587/rand=249733246>

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
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Regarding fuel safety, I've always thought a gasoline outboard (specially if
it's mounted on a pod or even in a self-draining well) has an advantage over
a gasoline inboard because any gas that leaks out of the engine will be
likely to drain overboard rather than into the bilge. Anyone with experience
or knowledge which supports this idea?

Gas outboards might even be safer than diesel inboards. Although diesel won't
explode, it can catch fire.

Howard

.In a message dated 24-04-02 1:19:33 AM E. Australia Standard Time,
brucehallman@...writes:

>
> Aren't all of these gasoline engines?
>
> Diesel engines have some advantages over gasoline engines, fuel
> economy is one big advantage of diesel. Fuel safety is another.
>
> I don't know, but it appears perhaps that neither the Merc or the OMC
> sterndrive will work with a diesel engine. Though obviosly PCB&F
> feel the Sonic will.
>
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What is wrong with a simple drive shaft and prop?

I put a scan of Howard Chapelle _Boatbuilding_ diagram of drive
shafts at:

http://www.hallman.org/bolger/propshaft.gif

and a URL about maintaining at:

http://members.aol.com/T30SAILOR/m30cutlass.html

...which after reading it seems to me like a pain to deal with!

--- In bolger@y..., "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
> Let's not forget price! for the same HP, a diesel will cost
> double or at least near to that amount. If the Mercruiser is
> $6000, then comparable diesel would be over $10,000 maybe $12,000.
> Now that will buy a lot of fuel

I think PCB&F argue that 120hp is too much power, so the "same HP"
comparison isn't the whole story. I admit to being a dreamer, but I
bet a used but OK Deutz diesel motor can be had at auction for
$3,500, and the Sonic sterndrive for $3,500, totaling $7-8,000. More
money, but not so much more to make it out of reason. Still, I like
the idea of the ubiquitous Mercruiser!

> Also, noisy! A gas engine will be relatively silent compared to a
> thumping, banging, knocking diesel.

SA, in her phone conversation with me three weeks ago, went out of
her way to say that the sound of the air cooled Deutz, located at the
stern of the Dakota would not be an issue. Now, a China/Hardy
diesel might be different! :)

Let's not forget price! Generally for the same HP, a diesel will cost
double or at least near to that amount. If the Mercruiser is $6000, then
comparable diesel would be over $10,000 maybe $12,000. Now that will buy a
lot of fuel maybe pay for all of it on a two year cruise.

Also, noisy! A gas engine will be relatively silent compared to a thumping,
banging, knocking diesel. I would be hard for me to imagine slipping along
a river bank watching wildlife having a diesel rumbling away.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "TOMB" <tbrowning@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

> Sam Devlin puts 135 Volvo I/O Duo Prop Diesel engines in his Surfscooter
> 25's with apparent good results. I have no Ideal of weight or cost.
>

--- In bolger@y..., Hal Lynch <hal@c...> wrote:

> Diesels are more fuel efficient then gas engines, but in the power
> range we are considering I wonder if it is significant. There are
> tens of thousands of gas powered boats used every year and only
> a few burn or explode. :^> hal

Fair points. Though my wild guess of the fuel cost difference is
$20/day. Could someone offer a better guess?

Another reason I was thinking diesel is that I like the diesel stoves
and diesel heaters versus propane or kerosene.

<tongue in cheek now> ...most of those ten thousand gas powered boats
are "boat show" boats, not Bolger boats!

--- In bolger@y..., "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@m...> wrote:
> I can see it now: big honking electric motor on top of salvaged
> outboard lower unit. ... inverter/transformer for battery charging.
> Quasi infinite power, lousy mpg?

Big honking salvaged electric motor. :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^

Lilly is run with an electric motor.

I'm sure there are losses in converting to electric power, but how
much? 10%? 50%?

This is not unlike those new hybrid cars that charge a battery bank
with a small gas engine and then run the wheels with electric motors.

--- In bolger@y..., Hal Lynch <hal@c...> wrote:

> Diesels are more fuel efficient then gas engines, but in the power
> range we are considering I wonder if it is significant. There are
> tens of thousands of gas powered boats used every year and only
> a few burn or explode. :^> hal

--- In bolger@y..., "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@m...> wrote:
> I can see it now: big honking electric motor on top of salvaged
> outboard lower unit. ... inverter/transformer for battery charging.
> Quasi infinite power, lousy mpg?

Big honking salvaged electric motor. :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^

Lilly is run with an electric motor.

I'm sure there are losses in converting to electric power, but how
much? 10%? 50%?

This is not unlike those new hybrid cars that charge a battery bank
with a small gas engine and then run the wheels with electric motors.

Sam Devlin puts 135 Volvo I/O Duo Prop Diesel engines in his Surfscooter
25's with apparent good results. I have no Ideal of weight or cost.

Kentucky Tom

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason
for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last
resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas
Jefferson

----- Original Message -----
From: "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 11:12 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

> I can see it now: big honking electric motor on top of salvaged
> outboard lower unit. Hook clamps from welder to motor terminals when
> you want to go. Water jacket to catch heat for shower from exhaust and
> cooling air (or is there a water radiator involved?) Some kind of
> inverter/transformer for battery charging. Quasi infinite power, lousy
> mpg?
> --- In bolger@y..., "brucehallman" <brucehallman@y...> wrote:
> snip
> > [and...I am curious if this gear box could be designed to divert
> > power to the propellor when traveling, and then divert power to your
> > on-board welding machine when welding???]
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>

On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 09:24 AM, Richard Spelling wrote:

> With a sterndrive, you have no hole in the hull. Also, you can raise it
> to
> get the most of your shallow draft boat.

Actually you do have a hole in the hull. A big one. With most boats
that hole is at least partially under water. With my boat it is all
under
water. The hole is there to get the drive shaft, tiller arm, shift
linkage,
hydraulic lines. water lines, and exhaust from inside the boat to the
outside. Of course all the above fill the hole so it doesn't leak. :^)

You can trim the drive out until the prop comes out of the water,
but you rapidly lose efficiency as the prop comes to the surface
because of prop angle and aeration. Also high rpm with the
prop trimmed way out is hard on universal joints.

>> Diesel engines have some advantages over gasoline engines, fuel
>> economy is one big advantage of diesel. Fuel safety is another.

Diesels are more fuel efficient then gas engines, but in the power
range we are considering I wonder if it is significant. There are
tens of thousands of gas powered boats used every year and only
a few burn or explode. :^}

hal

I can see it now: big honking electric motor on top of salvaged
outboard lower unit. Hook clamps from welder to motor terminals when
you want to go. Water jacket to catch heat for shower from exhaust and
cooling air (or is there a water radiator involved?) Some kind of
inverter/transformer for battery charging. Quasi infinite power, lousy
mpg?

--- In bolger@y..., "brucehallman" <brucehallman@y...> wrote:
snip
> [and...I am curious if this gear box could be designed to divert
> power to the propellor when traveling, and then divert power to your
> on-board welding machine when welding???]

>> Price from Noah's was $37.00 per sheet. Shipping was $686.00 from
>> Toronto, Canada. I originally thought it was shipped from Buffalo,
>> NY.
>
>Hmm, and for the I60, I'm in driving distance of Toronto, and
>could ship it myself. Do you have a vehicle capable of hauling
>4x8 sheets, David? I have some friends in the Catskills, almost
>exactly halfway between Rochester and Montauk, where we could
>transfer. Or if you don't, perhaps we could rent a U-Haul trailer
>for the day....

Even at $37/sheet that's still nearly twice ACX. Add in shipping,
renting, driving and I bet we're back near Jeff's delivered price.

Another factor is having to take delivery all at once. Capital and
storage expense needs to be factored in.

I've corresponded with both Bob Wise (LMII) and Bill McKibben (BDS).
My recollection is that Bob used something exotic to build the Moose
and that Bill used ACX for the BDS. I don't know if Bob glassed his
hull, but Bill told me he did not -- taped the seams and painted it.
Both were satisfied with the results.

I have been *very* satisfied with my ACX/glass/epoxy composite on the
LSME. Maybe in another year (or two or ten) I'll have to pay the
price for my cheapskate ways. But for now the hull is sound and the
finish extremely low maintenance. I've wondered if building 1/2
topside panels from lamintated and staggered 1/4" ACX might not be a
clever way to get two "A" faces to work on and eliminate the
buttblocks as well.

I'm curious to get PCB's input on plywood for the I60. In the
Jochem's video he mentions that building from Meranti rather than
marine Fir would have cut the weight of the hull, allowing for more
ballast and a stiffer boat. Certainly worth considering. It also
looks like Meranti is easier to is easier to get in shape for
finishing. Whether either of these things justify a $1500 price
difference (plus capital, transportation & storage) is probably a
question for each individual builder.

YIBB,

David

C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
(212) 247-0296

--- In bolger@y..., "Richard Spelling" <richard@s...> wrote:

> With a sterndrive, you have no hole in the hull.
> Also, you can raise it to get the most of your shallow draft boat.

I see the advantages of "no hole", but there are zillions of boats
and ships with drive shaft holes. If it saved me thousands of
dollars, I might accept the risk.

The Dakota has significant rocker in its bottom, unlike the Wyoming.
So the issue of shallow draft clearance is a little different. The
verision of Dakota in my dreams would have some sort of skeg to
protect the propellor from damage by logs, etc., and to allow it to
sit on the bottom at low tide.

Is 2000 rpm too fast for a propellor? Does this need to be reduced
with a gear box? If so, how fancy does this gear box need to be?

[and...I am curious if this gear box could be designed to divert
power to the propellor when traveling, and then divert power to your
on-board welding machine when welding???]

Diesel is a good idea.

With a sterndrive, you have no hole in the hull. Also, you can raise it to
get the most of your shallow draft boat.

----- Original Message -----
From: "brucehallman" <brucehallman@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:10 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

> --- In bolger@y..., Hal Lynch <hal@c...> wrote:
> > OMC Cobra
> > the Merc
> > the T50
>
> Aren't all of these gasoline engines?
>
> Diesel engines have some advantages over gasoline engines, fuel
> economy is one big advantage of diesel. Fuel safety is another.
>
> I don't know, but it appears perhaps that neither the Merc or the OMC
> sterndrive will work with a diesel engine. Though obviosly PCB&F
> feel the Sonic will.
>
> I might be revealing my naivety, but what is wrong with a simple
> drive shaft and prop? Don't propellors work at 2000 rpm? Why use a
> sterndrive at all?
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

--- In bolger@y..., Hal Lynch <hal@c...> wrote:

> OMC Cobra
> the Merc
> the T50

Aren't all of these gasoline engines?

Diesel engines have some advantages over gasoline engines, fuel
economy is one big advantage of diesel. Fuel safety is another.

I don't know, but it appears perhaps that neither the Merc or the OMC
sterndrive will work with a diesel engine. Though obviosly PCB&F
feel the Sonic will.

I might be revealing my naivety, but what is wrong with a simple
drive shaft and prop? Don't propellors work at 2000 rpm? Why use a
sterndrive at all?

> Price from Noah's was $37.00 per sheet. Shipping was $686.00 from
> Toronto, Canada. I originally thought it was shipped from Buffalo,
> NY.

Hmm, and for the I60, I'm in driving distance of Toronto, and
could ship it myself. Do you have a vehicle capable of hauling
4x8 sheets, David? I have some friends in the Catskills, almost
exactly halfway between Rochester and Montauk, where we could
transfer. Or if you don't, perhaps we could rent a U-Haul trailer
for the day....

-- Sue --
(about to take delivery of my I60 tow vehicle)

--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>

Price from Noah's was $37.00 per sheet. Shipping was $686.00 from Toronto,
Canada. I originally thought it was shipped from Buffalo, NY.

Total was $45.58/Sheet.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ryan" <david@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Merenti

> Jeff --
>
> What was your final cost per sheet including tax, shipping, etc.?
>
> -D
>
>
> >Yes, I got it from Noah's Marine. Meranti 6566.
> >
> >I got a nice discount for the 80 sheets, almost paid for the shipping. I
> >was going to get it locally, but Noah's beat the price.
> >
> >Jeff
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Clyde S. Wisner" <clydewis@...>
> >To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:35 AM
> >Subject: Re: [bolger] Merenti
> >
> >
> >> Did you get it from Noahs? I need to get a few sheets. I put a sheet
of
> >3/8 meranti on the bottom of
> >> my brick/skimmer(I cut the brick rockered bottom off) and it sat
outside
> >in the weather for a year,
> >> untouched, with no apparent change except weathered gray. Clyde
> >>
> >>boatbuilding@...wrote:
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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/
>
>
> C.E.P.
> 415 W.46th Street
> New York, New York 10036
>http://www.crumblingempire.com
> (212) 247-0296
>
>
> 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/
>
>

Jeff --

What was your final cost per sheet including tax, shipping, etc.?

-D

>Yes, I got it from Noah's Marine. Meranti 6566.
>
>I got a nice discount for the 80 sheets, almost paid for the shipping. I
>was going to get it locally, but Noah's beat the price.
>
>Jeff
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Clyde S. Wisner" <clydewis@...>
>To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:35 AM
>Subject: Re: [bolger] Merenti
>
>
>> Did you get it from Noahs? I need to get a few sheets. I put a sheet of
>3/8 meranti on the bottom of
>> my brick/skimmer(I cut the brick rockered bottom off) and it sat outside
>in the weather for a year,
>> untouched, with no apparent change except weathered gray. Clyde
>>
>>boatbuilding@...wrote:
>>
>
>
>
>
>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/

C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
(212) 247-0296

Yes, I got it from Noah's Marine. Meranti 6566.

I got a nice discount for the 80 sheets, almost paid for the shipping. I
was going to get it locally, but Noah's beat the price.

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Clyde S. Wisner" <clydewis@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Merenti

> Did you get it from Noahs? I need to get a few sheets. I put a sheet of
3/8 meranti on the bottom of
> my brick/skimmer(I cut the brick rockered bottom off) and it sat outside
in the weather for a year,
> untouched, with no apparent change except weathered gray. Clyde
>
>boatbuilding@...wrote:
>

Did you get it from Noahs? I need to get a few sheets. I put a sheet of 3/8 meranti on the bottom of
my brick/skimmer(I cut the brick rockered bottom off) and it sat outside in the weather for a year,
untouched, with no apparent change except weathered gray. Clyde

boatbuilding@...wrote:

> I got the 80 sheets of Merenti 1/2 plywood yesterday. All I
> can say is that it looks great! Walking around a 40" tall
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
> 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/

As long as you are voiding the warranty by adding an alternator, why
not drill and tap for a hot water hose? (Might want to use a heat
exchanger to keep the shower water cleaner, maybe?)

--- In bolger@y..., Hal Lynch <hal@c...> wrote:
snip
> Adapting a larger alternator to the T50 sounds attractive
> as long as you don't have to butcher the motor to do it.
>
> You can use the Merc. to heat the cabin and a hot water
> tank.
>
> hal

As the owner of a boat with an out drive (OMC Cobra) I have been
following this thread with interest. A few thoughts.

I have removed the drive leg from my boat for winter storage
for the better part of ten years now and have never needed
an alignment tool to reinstall the leg properly. From what I
have seen the Merc. is just as easy.

The merc. has a 70amp alternator.

The bellows can be a problem but the one on my drive has
lasted for longer than I have had the boat. I look at it REAL
close every spring.

If the Wyo. can maintain the 6" draft with the weight of the motor
and drive there is a good chance the bellows will not be
submerged.

I don't know what the maintenance interval is for the Merc,
or how it compares with the T50 but where you will have
the drive in the water for long periods of time and put lots
of hours on it ease and frequency of maint. could be
important.

Adapting a larger alternator to the T50 sounds attractive
as long as you don't have to butcher the motor to do it.

You can use the Merc. to heat the cabin and a hot water
tank.

hal

On Sunday, April 21, 2002, at 03:19 PM, Clyde S. Wisner wrote:

> The "T" is the hi thrust of the T 8, 10, 25,50. Geared to turn a much
> bigger prop, hopefully giving you a lot more control and power, not
> necessarily high speed. A diesel inboard could turn a big prop or
> wheel, as many work boats do. I'm not sure you get gearing choice on
> mercruiser type drive or if there is enough space for large prop. I
> think it is the
> large, slower turning prop that SA&PCB like. I think the T 50 turns a
> 14" prop. Clyde

I believe the mercruiser turns a 14" or 14.25" prop.

hal

Geeze, I totally forgot about hot showers! Chalk up another point for the
I/O.

Jeff

I vote for the I/O Jeff. Parts are cheaper, you have the room, and it would
be trivial to get hot water for showers out of the motor.

Besides hot showers, it would be easy to install a good sized alternator
too.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

> >
> > You do not want to pull a Mercruiser outdrive if you can help it. It
> > takes a special alignment tool to get it back in properly. My old Volvo
> > drive I could change out in 20 min. I installed the Mercruiser in place
> > of an outboard, with no assistance, just using the installation manual.
> > It was not difficult. A guy in Bellingham WA sold me the drive, and
> > mailed me up the alignment tool and I mailed it back when I was
> > finished.
>
>
> If I go with the Mercruiser and I'm really tempted to for now, maybe I
> should spring for the alignment tool to have around.
>
> I figure with the 6" draft on the Wyo, one could find a beach, throw a
> timber under the boat and let the tide go out, pull the drive and do the
> maintenance.
>
> I'm fairly handy mechanically having overhauled several of my own engines
> and have all the tune tools already as in timing light, dwell meter, etc.
> The 4 cyl Mercruiser has some advantages to me other than a good
alternator
> in that I could do the general tuneups including carb work.
>
> Thanks everyone, I truly appreciate the input.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>

>
> You do not want to pull a Mercruiser outdrive if you can help it. It
> takes a special alignment tool to get it back in properly. My old Volvo
> drive I could change out in 20 min. I installed the Mercruiser in place
> of an outboard, with no assistance, just using the installation manual.
> It was not difficult. A guy in Bellingham WA sold me the drive, and
> mailed me up the alignment tool and I mailed it back when I was
> finished.

If I go with the Mercruiser and I'm really tempted to for now, maybe I
should spring for the alignment tool to have around.

I figure with the 6" draft on the Wyo, one could find a beach, throw a
timber under the boat and let the tide go out, pull the drive and do the
maintenance.

I'm fairly handy mechanically having overhauled several of my own engines
and have all the tune tools already as in timing light, dwell meter, etc.
The 4 cyl Mercruiser has some advantages to me other than a good alternator
in that I could do the general tuneups including carb work.

Thanks everyone, I truly appreciate the input.

Jeff

A few more comments. With the flat transom of the Wyoming the outdrive
should be out of the water except for the tip of the fin. You can get to
all the grease points by putting the stern next to the beach and using
waders. Changing the out drive oil is the only real hard part. The 4 cyl
block that used to be used was a GM block that I believe was called the
"Iron Duke" but I could be wrong. I am sure that it is not used on any
cars any more, to hard to get that old technology under the pollution
regs. But when I ran mine, all the parts could be matched at NAPA in
Nome, block water pump, fuel pump etc. The raw water pump is in the
outdrive, just like in an outboard, and should not be run dry. One
inadvertent start up ashore for only about 7 sec's toasted mine. You
have to drop the lower section of the drive to replace it.

You do not want to pull a Mercruiser outdrive if you can help it. It
takes a special alignment tool to get it back in properly. My old Volvo
drive I could change out in 20 min. I installed the Mercruiser in place
of an outboard, with no assistance, just using the installation manual.
It was not difficult. A guy in Bellingham WA sold me the drive, and
mailed me up the alignment tool and I mailed it back when I was
finished.

HJ

> >
> > For now, I'm leaning to the 130 HP Mercruiser.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
>

In a message dated 4/20/02 8:44:51 PM Central Daylight Time,
senorian@...writes:

> hydraulic punp to the top of an outboard motor in order to
> power a pot hauler winch. IIRC it worked ok

"IIRC"? Vat is Dat?

The "waterwheel generator" strikes me as a Rube Goldberg conception at best,
but but the posted suggestions on using a propeller-driven unit don't sound
any more practical to me. Enhancing the T50's alternator output, if possible,
or installing the I/O seem much more attractive solutions. Powering the boat
to speed, to drive the impeller, to drive the generator is obviously a less
efficient system than just driving the generator directly, not to mention
that boat speed and the desired electrical power may not coincide! (The
opposite seems likely.)

Could a DC trolling motor be made to function as a DC generator? The DC
motors in electric and hybid-drive autos function in this mode, but I think
they have pretty sophisticated electronic controls that would be difficult to
duplicate. This notion does have the virtues of: 1) the trolling motors are
relatively cheap and readily available; 2) they would require minimal hull
modification and no through-hulls below the waterline; 3) they could be
lifted to preserve shallow draft; 4) they are fungible and could readily be
sold in the event that the experiment is a failure.

For that matter, a waterwheel might best be mounted on the lower unit of the
T50. It would benefit from the slipstream of the propellor, would certainly
add to the "What the F*** is THAT?!" factor, would require no
below-the-waterline through-hulls and could be readily discarded if deemed
unsuccessful.

I vaguely remember the pot-hauler gizmo article in National Fisherman. The
pump was driven off the flywheel, which required a hole to be cut in the top
of the shroud to accomodate the added height of the pump body. I assume there
was some sort of bracket attached to the block to prevent the pump body from
rotating and some kind of adapter to connect the impeller to the flywheel,
but don't recall any details. It was a commercial kit, not a D.Y.I. kind of
deal (fabricating the kit, not the installation), and probably involved some
non-trivial engineering. The National Fisherman article was a report on the
prototype. I don't know if it was ever successfully commercialized, although
that was clearly the developer's hope. (Not much call for pot-haulers here in
the Mid-West - lobstering hasn't caught on here yet, for some reason.)

Cutting a hole in the top of a T50 shroud could be a theft-deterent, but
might have an adverse impact on re-sale. Probably a non-issue as boat and
motor are unlikely to be separated absent catastrophic damage to the hull.
Also the pump turned at crankshaft speed, while alternators generally turn at
some mulitple of crankshaft speed. This would imply the need of a larger
alternator for given output.

The possibility of leaking rubber bellows on a sterndrive doesn't strike me
as a grave danger for Wyoming's intended use. The through-hull in the transom
will be well above the waterline and inspection of the bellows should be
pretty straightforward.

I can recall some advertisements for OMC sterndrives, years ago when they
were relatively new on the market, that touted as one of their supposed
advantages the ability to easily remove the outdrive from the transom for
service. The print ads gave the impression that this was about as easy a
changing a light bulb, which, I'm willing to bet, was misleading. I don't
know how, if it all, the OMC units' outdrive-transom-engine mechanical
connections differed from Volvo or Mercruiser units. I'm sure it is more
convenient to do this on dry land, but as the through-hull is above the
waterline, I can't see any theoretical reason why it could not be
accomplished afloat. I have no experience with outdrives and have no idea
whether this can be done in practice. (In this part of the world, 99% of all
boats are trailered for the winter and stored on lifts above water during our
3 months of summer, so neither removal afloat nor nasty marine growths are
ever an issue, to the best of my limited knowledge.)

For a great big job like Wyoming, it might be worthwhile to examine those
outdrive-transom-engine connections to see if removing the outdrive while
afloat is or can be made feasible. Possible pitfalls would include
unrestrained small or not-so-small parts dropping into the water, the need to
have someone inside the transom to do stuff and to be able to communicate
with them while working outside the transom and the difficulty of aligning a
splined coupling.

(I once spent a memorable hot afternoon on my back repeatedly bench-pressing
a 4-speed transmission for a 1949 Ford F-3 into position only to be just as
repeatedly frustrated by my inability to get the splines of the clutch and
crankshaft to line up closely enough to allow the units to couple. Some
pretty small tolerances were involved. I eventually succeeded, but I was on
dry land and if I hadn't succeeded on that last try I would probably still be
lying under that goddamned truck, immobilized by the transmission lying on my
chest and too damned tired and frustrated to care about living any longer.)

I'm sure that the T50 is a splendid piece of modern engineering. For Wyoming,
where amenites like elecrical power, cabin heat or hot water might be desira
ble, I'm inclined to think that the I/O installation would offer more
flexibility than the OB.

Volvo was the first company to offer sterndrives and used a variant of their
4 cyl. pushrod engine (B-18?). It was a smaller displacement engine (1.75
l.?) than the Chevy 4-banger, which I assume is the basic engine for the
Mercruiser unit, and had correspondingly less output - (80 hp.?) but had
quite a reputation for reliability and durability in automotive use. The
story of how and why Jim Wynne developed the patent for the sterndrive while
on Mr. K.'s payroll but ended up selling or licensing it to Volvo is highly
entertaining!

I'm looking forward to further progress reports on "Wyoming". It seems like
an awfully big project!!

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

(very pretty snow falling all day today - 4/21/02!)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> The "T" is the hi thrust of the T 8, 10, 25,50. Geared to
> turn a much bigger prop, hopefully giving you a lot more
> control and power, not necessarily high speed. A diesel
> inboard could turn a big prop or wheel, as many work boats
> do. I'm not sure you get gearing choice on mercruiser type
> drive or if there is enough space for large prop. I think it
> is the large, slower turning prop that SA&PCB like. I think
> the T 50 turns a 14" prop. Clyde

All excellent points. The only option on the Alpha for the 3.0
is a 2.4 gear ratio rather than the stock 2.0. This is for
high altitude or a bit larger prop. Size of possible props is
something I would have to research. In my discussions with a
distributor, he claims that switching props is not a big deal
and best option would be to carry two. One for higher speed
cruising and one for the slower hull speed. Supposedly like
the props they use on houseboats or float boats when installing
the 3.0 Mercruiser.

Jeff

The "T" is the hi thrust of the T 8, 10, 25,50. Geared to turn a much bigger prop, hopefully giving you a lot more control and power, not necessarily high speed. A diesel inboard could turn a big prop or wheel, as many work boats do. I'm not sure you get gearing choice on mercruiser type drive or if there is enough space for large prop. I think it is the
large, slower turning prop that SA&PCB like. I think the T 50 turns a 14" prop. Clyde

Chuck Leinweber wrote:

> Jeff:
>
> Why not go with the Yamaha 80? It charges 20 amps. If you felt you needed extra buoyancy in the read, build a couple of drake tails like the Sneakeasy. Also, what do you have against solar panels? They are quiet and efficient. I am amazed at how well ours works. I noticed the other day that ours was charging at half it's normal rate - on a cloudy day!
>
> We'll get you straightened out yet.
>
> Chuck
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:boatbuilding@...
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:43 PM
> Subject: [bolger] Water Wheel?
>
> I have a truly strange idea floating around my head. If I went
> with an outboard on the Wyo, I need a way to charge batteries.
> Solar will work, but not reliable unless tons of money is spent
> over sizing. Wind, well having a rotating noisy thing humming
> away doesn't really set with the concept of the Wyo. Running
> another gas engine to generate does make sense either.
>
> Now, the Wyo has a "huge" float bottom cockpit. Could one make
> up a water wheel that could be mounted in a slot that would
> turn an alternator. Just thinking here but if the the slot
> where long enough that the water would sort of jet up to the
> wheel as you moved along, the wheel wouldn't have to drop below
> the hull and would be protected.
>
> Maybe build a slot 12" wide like a centerboard but the rear of
> the slot would be open out the transom. A 36" wheel should
> turn about 225 RPM at 8 MPH. With proper gearing it could turn
> an alternator.
>
> This would work when anchored in a river and as the tide moved
> in and out. Unless powering, the energy produced would be
> minimal but I can see this being built very inexpensively using
> plywood/aluminum and an alternator.
>
> Does this sound to strange to work? Would it be powerful
> enough?
>
> I know there will be a chuckle or two, but maybe?
>
> Jeff
>
> 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.
>
> [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/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In bolger@y..., <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:

> >
> > Maybe you could just figure out a way to belt on an extra
> > alternator on the engine?
>
> When I talked to SA, she mentioned that she and Phil where
> trying to do just that on their T50 Yamaha. They where having
> a bracket or some such thing made up for them as a test.
> Supposedly there is enough room under the engine cover to mount
> another altenator.
>
> Jeff

Hi
May years ago National Fisherman had a couple of articles about
adding a hydraulic punp to the top of an outboard motor in order to
power a pot hauler winch. IIRC it worked ok and perhaps could be used
to power a large alternator.

I bought the 120 HP version, back when they still made it with an Alpha
drive (.2 liter less displacement). I put it on my modified Oregon Dory
and it is still on there and running 14 or so years and several owners
later. It takes a hit in salt water, mine has not had anything like
proper care but is still functional. I ran it single engine along a
pretty lonely coast where I might be the only boat in 75 miles with no
worries. The Volvo 280 out drive that I ran during the same time period
on another boat was a lot easier to work on. All of the parts on the
chevy block can be replaced at NAPA. You can run a car heater off of the
heat exchanger.

You should be able to get package on special with instruments during
boatshow season.

HJ

>
> For now, I'm leaning to the 130 HP Mercruiser.
>
> Jeff
>
>

>
> Maybe you could just figure out a way to belt on an extra
> alternator on the engine?

When I talked to SA, she mentioned that she and Phil where
trying to do just that on their T50 Yamaha. They where having
a bracket or some such thing made up for them as a test.
Supposedly there is enough room under the engine cover to mount
another altenator.

Jeff

I'll bet a standard propellor is just the wrong thing and you'd need a
"propellor" with blades cambered the other way. For people who moor
where there's a tidal current, the waterwheel or an "anti-propellor"
would be great. I know of an anchorage club where they get a knot or
two. The alternator could be on the transom, and the turbine or
whatever you call it could be at the end of a rope.

It's not clear to me that a well made, small wind generator has to be
noisy. How about a Savonius rotor? You could probably make it
collapsible. However, if you are really power hungry a wind generator
might look awfully big.

Maybe you could just figure out a way to belt on an extra alternator
on the engine?

--- In bolger@y..., "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
> There are, or have been, generating devices that are towed in the
> water rather than held aloft in the wind. I think that screw
> propellors are more effecient than water wheels.
>
> PHV

> Jeff:
>
> Why not go with the Yamaha 80? It charges 20 amps. If you
> felt you needed extra buoyancy in the read, build a couple
> of drake tails like the Sneakeasy. Also, what do you have
> against solar panels? They are quiet and efficient. I am
> amazed at how well ours works. I noticed the other day that
> ours was charging at half it's normal rate - on a cloudy
> day!
>
> We'll get you straightened out yet.

That I'm hoping for Chuck. :>)

I anticipate some electrical needs that will exceed a 20 amp
altenators ability to supply. Cost is the main issue for me on
solar panels. The ratio for power on solar panels is 1/3
amp/day per watt supposedly at a latitude of NYC. A 150 Watt
solar panel is $700 or so, I'd would need at least 2 to be
anywhere close to self sufficient, three to be ideal with
cloudy days.

Bouyancy is not an issue on the Wyo. It can handle a 600 lb.
Mercruiser so the T80 would not be a bother.

BTW, I figured on a chuckle or two but had to throw it out
anyway just in case.

Jeff

Jeff:

Why not go with the Yamaha 80? It charges 20 amps. If you felt you needed extra buoyancy in the read, build a couple of drake tails like the Sneakeasy. Also, what do you have against solar panels? They are quiet and efficient. I am amazed at how well ours works. I noticed the other day that ours was charging at half it's normal rate - on a cloudy day!

We'll get you straightened out yet.

Chuck

----- Original Message -----
From:boatbuilding@...
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:43 PM
Subject: [bolger] Water Wheel?

I have a truly strange idea floating around my head. If I went
with an outboard on the Wyo, I need a way to charge batteries.
Solar will work, but not reliable unless tons of money is spent
over sizing. Wind, well having a rotating noisy thing humming
away doesn't really set with the concept of the Wyo. Running
another gas engine to generate does make sense either.

Now, the Wyo has a "huge" float bottom cockpit. Could one make
up a water wheel that could be mounted in a slot that would
turn an alternator. Just thinking here but if the the slot
where long enough that the water would sort of jet up to the
wheel as you moved along, the wheel wouldn't have to drop below
the hull and would be protected.

Maybe build a slot 12" wide like a centerboard but the rear of
the slot would be open out the transom. A 36" wheel should
turn about 225 RPM at 8 MPH. With proper gearing it could turn
an alternator.

This would work when anchored in a river and as the tide moved
in and out. Unless powering, the energy produced would be
minimal but I can see this being built very inexpensively using
plywood/aluminum and an alternator.

Does this sound to strange to work? Would it be powerful
enough?

I know there will be a chuckle or two, but maybe?

Jeff

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.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There are, or have been, generating devices that are towed in the
water rather than held aloft in the wind. I think that screw
propellors are more effecient than water wheels.

PHV

Solar?

This does sound a little like re-inventing the wheel.
Still the boat is probably large enough to have 9
holes of mini golf, not just the one you suggest...

---boatbuilding@...wrote:

<HR>
<html><body>

<tt>
I have a truly strange idea floating around my
head. If I went 
with an outboard on the Wyo, I need a way to charge
batteries. 
Solar will work, but not reliable unless tons of money
is spent 
over sizing. Wind, well having a rotating noisy
thing humming 
away doesn't really set with the concept of the
Wyo. Running 
another gas engine to generate does make sense
either. 
 
Now, the Wyo has a "huge" float bottom
cockpit. Could one make 
up a water wheel that could be mounted in a slot that
would 
turn an alternator. Just thinking here but if
the the slot 
where long enough that the water would sort of jet up
to the 
wheel as you moved along, the wheel wouldn't have to
drop below 
the hull and would be protected. 
 
Maybe build a slot 12" wide like a centerboard
but the rear of 
the slot would be open out the transom. A
36" wheel should 
turn about 225 RPM at 8 MPH. With proper gearing
it could turn 
an alternator. 
 
This would work when anchored in a river and as the
tide moved 
in and out. Unless powering, the energy produced
would be 
minimal but I can see this being built very
inexpensively using 
plywood/aluminum and an alternator. 
 
Does this sound to strange to work? Would it be
powerful 
enough? 
 
I know there will be a chuckle or two, but maybe? 
 
Jeff 
 
 
</tt>

 



<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center>ADVERTISEMENT <a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.1994012.3473453.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=1036972/R=0/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=3466"targe
t=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ed/ediets/250x300_bluechair.jpg"alt="Click
Here!" width="250" height="300"
border="0"></a></td></tr></table></td>
</tr>
<tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1
src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.1994012.3473453.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=1036972/rand=924554472"></td></tr>
</table>



 
<tt>
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</tt>
 

 
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>


</body></html>

______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca

I have a truly strange idea floating around my head. If I went
with an outboard on the Wyo, I need a way to charge batteries.
Solar will work, but not reliable unless tons of money is spent
over sizing. Wind, well having a rotating noisy thing humming
away doesn't really set with the concept of the Wyo. Running
another gas engine to generate does make sense either.

Now, the Wyo has a "huge" float bottom cockpit. Could one make
up a water wheel that could be mounted in a slot that would
turn an alternator. Just thinking here but if the the slot
where long enough that the water would sort of jet up to the
wheel as you moved along, the wheel wouldn't have to drop below
the hull and would be protected.

Maybe build a slot 12" wide like a centerboard but the rear of
the slot would be open out the transom. A 36" wheel should
turn about 225 RPM at 8 MPH. With proper gearing it could turn
an alternator.

This would work when anchored in a river and as the tide moved
in and out. Unless powering, the energy produced would be
minimal but I can see this being built very inexpensively using
plywood/aluminum and an alternator.

Does this sound to strange to work? Would it be powerful
enough?

I know there will be a chuckle or two, but maybe?

Jeff

Thanks for all the feed back on the Sterndrive. I have to
admit that putting a outboard makes more sense from a
installation and maintenance side.

My real selfish reason is for the alternator. Cruising along
cranking out 40 - 100 amps to keep the batteries topped off
does a lot for comfort. Let alone reducing the battery size
and cost. One could probably get by on 150 to 200 amp hr.
supply. No solar panels, generator, etc.

As to my conversation with SA, we did not really discuss the
planing properties of the Wyo. For the most part, she thought
the Wyo would move to a plane without much fanfare. The power
is theoretically at around 150HP but until one is built, it's
guess work and may actually be much lower.

I would love to have a get together of Power Sharpies,
unfortunate I could not trailer to a messabout. Maybe we could
host it here at Lake McConaughy in NE? Maybe when we actually
get on our cruise we could meet but keeping a schedule cruising
is usually not possible.

Jeff

re: planing in Wyo, and linear? scaling up:

>Jeff wrote:
>I had a long conversation with Susan A. about using the 130 4
>cyl mercruiser with Alpha drive. At 130 HP, it's just under a
>full plane for the Wyo but I don't intend to plane the boat.

Jeff,
I'm curious about how this conversation with Susan went about full plane.
In Sneakeasy, I literally cannot detect any, even minute, transition
between displacement and plane. Everything (angle, wake etc) changes very
smoothly and very gradually from idle to full speed. The bow does indeed
lift a couple degrees, but you cannot detect the bow lifting from inside
the boat (unless you observe the bilge water very carefully). I would
think Wyo would be the same given PCB says its almost an exact 2:1 scaleup.
In some boats having enough HP to get "over the top" and up on step is a
big issue, but for the power sharpies (at least the small ones) it almost
seems a non-issue. If you were a little shy of the theoretical power
needed to plane it should not matter all that much - you just go a tad
slower, not a lot slower and lingering below some threshold of
inefficiency. However, all things don't scale up linearly, and perhaps
there is something here that doesn't scale up that way. So I'm curious if
Susan had any more to say about planing in Wyo and what happens if you are
a little under the HP needed to plane WYO?

When you get yours done, I think we need to have a power sharpie
get-together somewhere!

--Fritz

----------------
Fritz Funk
Phone: (H): (907)780-4261 (W):(907)465-6113

My Boatbuilding Page:http://www.alaska.net/~fritzf/Boats/Boats.htm
(Bolger power sharpie "Sneakeasy" and other projects)

B-24 Aircrew "Roger the Lodger":http://www.alaska.net/~fritzf/B24/

Joe's HomeSchool Project - Blending Aviation and Computer Technologies in
an Elementary Setting:http://www.alaska.net/~fritzf/Aviation/FlightSchool/

I'll bet the resale value is a lot higher for the Yamaha, too. I vote for the OB, Jeff.

Chuck
BTW, the engine used in a 130 hp Mercruiser is a GM engine
but it was never used in automobiles, so parts must be purchased
through a Mercruiser dealer.
A sterndrive must be serviced annually. The drive has to be
removed from the transom and the universal joints and spline lubed,
and the gear oil has to be drained and refilled. Also the water pump
in located inside the drive. On a trailer boat, this service is easy,
but on a large, in-the-water-all-the-time boat you must haul out to
do drive service. Don't forget that a stern drive has a rubber
bellows which allows the drive to tilt and turn. If this bellows
leaks or is damaged, water enters the boat. I would try to watch a
stern drive being serviced at a dealer before buying one.
An outboard can be removed(with a hoist or davit) and taken to a
dealer for service.
Larry

-- In bolger@y..., <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:

> Diesel longevity is not an issue here IMHO. The GM 4 cyl
> > used by
> > Mercruiser is tough. Many more recreational boat engines
> > die from neglect than ever wear out.
> >
> > Besides, if I understood Jeff correctly the power is about
> > right
> > for a planing Wyoming. :^)
> >
> > hal
>
> I had a long conversation with Susan A. about using the 130 4
> cyl mercruiser with Alpha drive. At 130 HP, it's just under a
> full plane for the Wyo but I don't intend to plane the boat.
> I'm very seriously thinking of putting the 130 HP
> Mercruiser/Alpha on the Wyo.
>
> SA doesn't really like the outdrives because they can' lift all
> the way out of the water and can get growth and such in the
> water passage causing overheating and failure. Where the Wyo
> is so shallow, I don't believe it to be a problem but more
> research needs to be done.
>
> My question to the group a couple months ago got good reviews
> for the outdrive for reliability. Cruising at 15 to 20 HP
> shouldn't make the engine or drive work hard.
>
> A T50 Yamaha delivered is $6000.00. I can get a 130 Mercruiser
> package delivered for $5800.00. Neither includes controls. SA
> still prefers the T50 for the type of cruising I discussed with
> her.
>
> T50 = simplicity for install and maintenance. 130 Mercruiser =
> more HP for same money.
>
> For now, I'm leaning to the 130 HP Mercruiser.
>
> Jeff

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.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

BTW, the engine used in a 130 hp Mercruiser is a GM engine
but it was never used in automobiles, so parts must be purchased
through a Mercruiser dealer.
A sterndrive must be serviced annually. The drive has to be
removed from the transom and the universal joints and spline lubed,
and the gear oil has to be drained and refilled. Also the water pump
in located inside the drive. On a trailer boat, this service is easy,
but on a large, in-the-water-all-the-time boat you must haul out to
do drive service. Don't forget that a stern drive has a rubber
bellows which allows the drive to tilt and turn. If this bellows
leaks or is damaged, water enters the boat. I would try to watch a
stern drive being serviced at a dealer before buying one.
An outboard can be removed(with a hoist or davit) and taken to a
dealer for service.
Larry

-- In bolger@y..., <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:

> Diesel longevity is not an issue here IMHO. The GM 4 cyl
> > used by
> > Mercruiser is tough. Many more recreational boat engines
> > die from neglect than ever wear out.
> >
> > Besides, if I understood Jeff correctly the power is about
> > right
> > for a planing Wyoming. :^)
> >
> > hal
>
> I had a long conversation with Susan A. about using the 130 4
> cyl mercruiser with Alpha drive. At 130 HP, it's just under a
> full plane for the Wyo but I don't intend to plane the boat.
> I'm very seriously thinking of putting the 130 HP
> Mercruiser/Alpha on the Wyo.
>
> SA doesn't really like the outdrives because they can' lift all
> the way out of the water and can get growth and such in the
> water passage causing overheating and failure. Where the Wyo
> is so shallow, I don't believe it to be a problem but more
> research needs to be done.
>
> My question to the group a couple months ago got good reviews
> for the outdrive for reliability. Cruising at 15 to 20 HP
> shouldn't make the engine or drive work hard.
>
> A T50 Yamaha delivered is $6000.00. I can get a 130 Mercruiser
> package delivered for $5800.00. Neither includes controls. SA
> still prefers the T50 for the type of cruising I discussed with
> her.
>
> T50 = simplicity for install and maintenance. 130 Mercruiser =
> more HP for same money.
>
> For now, I'm leaning to the 130 HP Mercruiser.
>
> Jeff

I got the 80 sheets of Merenti 1/2 plywood yesterday. All I
can say is that it looks great! Walking around a 40" tall
pile, I found only one edge void on all 4 sides of 80 sheets
and it was about 1/4" wide and 1/4" deep. Just as promised,
probably a chip out when sawn to shape.

It looks a lot like Luan but the grain is much tighter. Very
noticable difference when I laid a sheet of Luan next to it.

Total shipping weight was 3800 lbs so it averages just under 50
lbs a sheet. Both sides are very smooth and though it's not
sold as cabinet grade, 50% or better have perfect faces I saw
had no flaws. I didn't get a chance to look at all the faces
as we unloaded but I did not notice a single oval plug like the
Fir marine ply.

So far I'm very impressed with the quality. I'll let you know
more as I start sawing the stuff up.

BTW, after deliver, taxes, etc. it cost $46.14 / sheet. About
$4.25 more than MDO. Now we'll see if it's worth the extra
$340.00.

Jeff

Diesel longevity is not an issue here IMHO. The GM 4 cyl

> used by
> Mercruiser is tough. Many more recreational boat engines
> die from neglect than ever wear out.
>
> Besides, if I understood Jeff correctly the power is about
> right
> for a planing Wyoming. :^)
>
> hal

I had a long conversation with Susan A. about using the 130 4
cyl mercruiser with Alpha drive. At 130 HP, it's just under a
full plane for the Wyo but I don't intend to plane the boat.
I'm very seriously thinking of putting the 130 HP
Mercruiser/Alpha on the Wyo.

SA doesn't really like the outdrives because they can' lift all
the way out of the water and can get growth and such in the
water passage causing overheating and failure. Where the Wyo
is so shallow, I don't believe it to be a problem but more
research needs to be done.

My question to the group a couple months ago got good reviews
for the outdrive for reliability. Cruising at 15 to 20 HP
shouldn't make the engine or drive work hard.

A T50 Yamaha delivered is $6000.00. I can get a 130 Mercruiser
package delivered for $5800.00. Neither includes controls. SA
still prefers the T50 for the type of cruising I discussed with
her.

T50 = simplicity for install and maintenance. 130 Mercruiser =
more HP for same money.

For now, I'm leaning to the 130 HP Mercruiser.

Jeff

I think the sonic drive was chosen because it is made independent of a
power source. It is designed to be mated up to many different power
heads. It is also designed for lower HP's.

Mercruiser and Volvo outdrives are part of a package with a power head,
and the smallest you can get is 120HP. Mercruiser appears to own the US
market. The powerhead is usually converted auto, very easy to work on.

The DBD drive is a brand new Australian concept. I think if you were
enterprising and put together an engine/DBD drive package and sold it
properly to Bayliner or some other similar user of outdrives installed
in overpowered ugly fiberglass boats, Mercruiser would fade away.

HJ

>
> I wonder why PCB&F chose the Sonic sterndrive for Tahiti, is it
> becuase they see it at the best choice, or is it because the guy
> building Tahiti had one sitting around, or had specified it?
>
> I tend to favor tried and tested equipment, and equipment with spare
> parts in available in junkyards everywhere.
>
>

I have inquiries out. I think their close.

HJ

"Clyde S. Wisner" wrote:

>
> Are they available in US yet? I've always liked the idea and now with a not too expensive
> diesel....Clyde
>
> "Harry W. James" wrote:
>
> > I really want to try the DBD drive
> >
> >http://www.dbdmarine.com/
> >
>

I'm there, buddy. - Chuck
<snip>
South Padre Island here we come visiting Chuck!

Jeff

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 08:04 AM 4/19/02, you wrote:

>I wonder why PCB&F chose the Sonic sterndrive for Tahiti, is it
>becuase they see it at the best choice, or is it because the guy
>building Tahiti had one sitting around, or had specified it?

PB&F chose the Sonic drive because it is the only drive that fits their
criteria of actually doing the job. The Sonic, when retracted gets
everything out of the water. It will handle the horsepower. It has, as I
recall, a larger propeller than most stern drives.

I've spoken with Phil and Susanne about this several times, face to face.
Their next favorite drives are Schottel Rudderpropellers. Schottel-Werft,
Spay AM Rhine, Germany, Phone (from the US) 011-49-26-28-610 Fax
011-49-26-28-61-327. Schottel Rudderpropellers roatate 360 degrees, giving
you vectoring thrust and probably eliminating the need for a bow thruster
even on long boats.

Schottel's SRP-100 (no longer in production but reasonably available used
and certified from Schraven in the Netherlands, Phone 011-31-26-325-23-28
Fax 011-31-26-325-62-63) or the SRP-50 which is also not in production but
seems to be less readily available used and reconditioned. The SRP-100 can
handle up to 285 hp.

Schraven, last time I checked which is about two years ago, had
reconditioned SRP-100s available for about $6,000 FOB Netherlands. I never
priced the SRP-50s nor enquired in detail about their availability. The
SRP-50 might be a better choice than the Sonic drive as, I believe they
have a bigger propeller, are more robust and have vectoring thrust.

Schottel replaced the SRP-100 with the SRP-110. A new SRP-110 is about
$30,000 from Schottel.

I visited the Schottel factory, Schraven's warehouse and engineering and
testing facility and the Deutz factory a couple of years ago. Schottel is
much more intereted in making 20,000 hp vectoring thrust units for ships so
they don't have to rely on tugs than they are the SRP-110s. They do,
however make the SRP-110s and their factory is very interesting. Spay AM
Rhine is just upstream of where the Mosel enters the Rhine. It is a small
village and there's a great inn, the Posthoff. Schottel will help you get a
reservation. The Posthoff even has menus in English but you have to ask for
it as they think every one speaks German.

The Deutz factory is absolutely amazing. The assembly line, one of six,
moves at the pace of a slow walk through an incredibly long, about a
kilometer I guess, and wide, 200 meters or 300 meters, building. They build
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 cylinder air cooled engines in any order. Everything is
"Just In Time." No parts inventory, no nothing. The joke at the factory is
that the trucks that bring the parts for the engine could just drive
v-e-r-y slowly around the building and pick up the finished engine at the
other end. Finish the engines they do. Each engine is then dyno tested and
crated for shipping. Very amazing stuff.

Both factories are worth a visit. The Deutz factory is in, surprise,
surprise, Deutz, which is right across the river from Koln or Cologne
depending on your ethnicity. To arrange my factory tours I faxed both
factories that I was going to be in country on a certain date and called
them to announce my arrival. I told them that I was considering using their
products in a boat that I expected to build. I still expect to build it, so
I didn't lie. I took the guys who took me on the tours out for a meal at as
nice a restaurant as I could find. They all spoke excellent English.

I visited the Schraven facility which is near the "Bridge Too Far" in
Arnhem the Netherlands. (British paratroopers took the bridge but
Montgomery couldn't get to them in time to save them from being anihilated
by the Germans.) Schraven has a huge inventory of used Deutz diesels (in
the hundreds) and a bunch of Schraven Rudderpropellers (twenty to forty.) I
believe they have SRP-50s I know they have or had many SRP-100s. They have
larger units too. Schraven gets most of their stock form NATO surplus. They
have the shop facilities to test and recondition the equipment they get.
Schraven sells Deutz diesels for about 25% of their new cost and Schottel
Rudder propellers for about the same.

All this started with a question about the Sonic drive. Phil and Susanne
are pretty aware of what's out there when it comes to nautical equipment
including motors, transmissions and propulsion units. They didn't choose
the Sonic drive because Mr. Tahiti happened to have one lying around. They
chose the Sonic because it is the closest thing that they can find to do
what they want. I suspect that if money was no object and if Schottel was
still making the SRP-50 PB&F would have specified it as it has a much
bigger propeller than the Sonic and is, I suspect, much more rugged.

Phil Smith

On Friday, April 19, 2002, at 09:04 AM, brucehallman wrote:

> I like the Deutz aircooled diesel engines because there are *lots* of
> them around, used in farm and construction equipment.
>
> On the same premise, I am curious which sterndrive is most popular.
> Searching on Google for:
>
> 'Sonic sterndrive'............ 74 hits
> 'Mercruiser sterndrive'..... 3,310 hits
> 'DBD sterndrive'.............. 29 hits
> 'Volvo sterndrive'.......... 1,460 hits
> 'OMC sterndrive'............ 1,500 hits
>
> Not exactly scientific, but interesting.

Doing the same kind of search on Google:
'Deutz diesel engine' ........7,640
'GM 4 cylinder engine'.....25,000

I would think that the motor and drive you choose would
depend on the service you can get where you boat.

I think any boat repair shop worthy of the name in the US,
probably Canada, and perhaps Mexico can work on a Mercruiser
out drive. Same for the 4 cylinder GM engine Mercruiser uses,
plus any auto parts store or junk yard will have the parts you need.

> I tend to favor tried and tested equipment, and equipment with spare
> parts in available in junkyards everywhere.

Exactly so.

The Mercruiser Alpha out drive has been in production for years
and improved several times.

Diesel longevity is not an issue here IMHO. The GM 4 cyl used by
Mercruiser is tough. Many more recreational boat engines die from
neglect than ever wear out.

Besides, if I understood Jeff correctly the power is about right
for a planing Wyoming. :^)

hal

--- In bolger@y..., "Harry W. James" <welshman@p...> wrote:

> I really want to try the DBD drive

I like the Deutz aircooled diesel engines because there are *lots* of
them around, used in farm and construction equipment.

On the same premise, I am curious which sterndrive is most popular.
Searching on Google for:

'Sonic sterndrive'............ 74 hits
'Mercruiser sterndrive'..... 3,310 hits
'DBD sterndrive'.............. 29 hits
'Volvo sterndrive'.......... 1,460 hits
'OMC sterndrive'............ 1,500 hits

Not exactly scientific, but interesting.

Indeed, on the rec.boats.building newsgroup, some of the DBD
Sterndrive postings pertain to complaints about the postings
appearing as spam.

I wonder why PCB&F chose the Sonic sterndrive for Tahiti, is it
becuase they see it at the best choice, or is it because the guy
building Tahiti had one sitting around, or had specified it?

I tend to favor tried and tested equipment, and equipment with spare
parts in available in junkyards everywhere.

Are they available in US yet? I've always liked the idea and now with a not too expensive
diesel....Clyde

"Harry W. James" wrote:

> I really want to try the DBD drive
>
>http://www.dbdmarine.com/
>

I really want to try the DBD drive

http://www.dbdmarine.com/

On a Wyoming or a Dakota with a Deutz diesel driving it. Shallow draft,
light weight, simplicity, all those great Bolger traits. It will be
several years before I am able to get around to it, if ever. I wish
somebody would give it a try so I could live the experiment vicariously
with them.

HJ

> SA mentioned in her phone call that they also recommended the use of
> an aircooled diesel engine and a I/O power drive unit. This is what
> appears to be used in Tahati in the recent MAIB article.
>
>

At one time, I had designed my own boat for our cruise. It was a 38' displacement boat and I was going to install two 30HP Hardy diesels. I had it designed that the engines sat as low as possible centered with driveshafts and U-Joints set up like Buehler does. The 2000+ lbs. would have been good ballast and the two engines would have been good for redundancy. Good sound insulation and mounting would have been tolerable, plus I'm capable of doing all the mechanical work.

With better thought and cheaper building, the Wyo won out in the end.

Jeff

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The Hardy Diesel [aka China Diesel] appears to be the workhorse
diesel engine of Mainland China and I would bet that there are more
than ten million of them at work over there right at this moment.

No doubt the motor is loud and heavy [and simple and cheap]. The
added weight is not necessarily a problem, though it may be in many
cases. It might be fun to experiment with it. A better muffler might
help too. Hardy Diesel in California stocks parts for these engines.

I have read one of those alternative power complaint pages about an
off-the-grid generator based on this china diesel engine, and the
complains seemed to be aimed at the generator and the assembly, not
the actual engine.

You get what you pay for, and fine tuned engineering like with a
Japanese Yanmar or a German Deutz [built where?] cost 2x, 3x or 4x
this simple Chineese workhorse.

Personally, I think I would choose a Deutz, but it is fun to dream
about other cheap options. Their $995 diesel outboard motor 4hp with
12 1/2" high thrust prop makes me smile.

--- In bolger@y..., "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
> I've looked at the Hardy diesel. Best opinion I have is to leave
> them alone. Unless you have a trawler with the big displacement
> size, a 1000 lb. 30hp diesel doesn't fit to well in most boats.
> Also, there are several "off the grid" type web sites loaded with
> generator information and the Hardy diesel generators don't have a
> good reputation. They shake them selves apart.
>
> You get what you pay for as always. A big old fishing trawler
> with a mechanic to keep them tightened up, it sounds like they'll
> run forever. On a small cruiser, I'm not sure it's a good option.
>

--- In bolger@y..., "Jeff Blunck" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:

> I believe it's the Sonic Cat stern drive on the Tahiti

FWIW, here is a diagram

http://www.lancingmarine.com/sonic.html

--- In bolger@y..., "brucehallman" <brucehallman@y...> wrote:

>
> I wonder which I/O power drive unit is used on Tahati?

Bruce,
I believe the lower unit is the SONIC Drive from England.

Peter Lenihan

Wyo is dead flat, indeed just a blown up sneakeasy. The original design
was for a 120 HP engine, and planing was part of the plan.

thomas dalzell wrote:

>
> What about Wyo then? It seems logical thatthese
> larger boats would have "rocker" aft since planing
> them seems wasteful.
>
> --- "Harry W. James" <welshman@...> wrote:
>
> <HR>
> <html><body>
>
> <tt>
> I thought so too until Vince corrected me. Dakota has
> rocker, though it 
> doesn't show well in the profile drawing in the files. <
>

I've looked at the Hardy diesel. Best opinion I have is to leave them alone. Unless you have a trawler with the big displacement size, a 1000 lb. 30hp diesel doesn't fit to well in most boats. Also, there are several "off the grid" type web sites loaded with generator information and the Hardy diesel generators don't have a good reputation. They shake them selves apart.

You get what you pay for as always. A big old fishing trawler with a mechanic to keep them tightened up, it sounds like they'll run forever. On a small cruiser, I'm not sure it's a good option.

Jeff
--

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In bolger@y..., "futabachan" <futabachan@y...> wrote:

> an under-$6k solution to the Yamaha T50 problem, as it's the

For $6K, a diesel engine begins to be worth considering. Hardy
Diesel sells 'em as low as $2,495:

http://www.hardydiesel.com/mrn/295%20marine.htm

The people at rec.boats.building argue that fuel is cheaper, diesel
engines get better "mpg", they're simpler to maintain, the fuel is
safer, fewer moving parts, easier to repair and they have a longer
lifespan too. I can't say I agree with all this "conventional
wisdom", but it is food for thought. I think PCB and SA like diesel
engines, especially the Deutz air cooled ones. And the economics
seem to be nearly on par with a Yamaha T-50.

From my visits with PB&F, the Wyo was originally intended to scoot up rivers with minimal wake and in it's original designed use was for weekend outings far up / down river from it's home base. The person commissioning the design did not want to have a big wake to disturb the river banks and wildlife. With her flat run, 150HP should push the Wyo to about 22 MPH or right at planing speeds. I doubt there are many 51', 10,000 lbs. boats that can do that on 150 hp!

The Wyo's biggest bow wave / wake should the same as her draft of 6 inches. Because of her length, she'll bridge well on choppy waters but I've been cautioned to slow up and use the centerboard in waters with large swells or running with waves. She'll not be a great boat in big waters but under fair weather conditions can handle most anything the Great Lakes or Coastal waters can dish out. Just be judicial about the weather and PB&F say she'll be a very good ICW / river cruiser.

The Dakota and Tennessee are designed for safer and slower cruising speeds with less sensitivity to load placement which is a character of true Cruisers. The Wyo will be sensitive to loads and I'll have keep an eye on her balance.

I intend to explore rivers and canals with my Wyo. She'll see more Great Lakes shore running and rivers than the ICW and very few unprotected jaunts when Coastal cruising.

South Padre Island here we come visiting Chuck!

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: thomas dalzell
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 1:19 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Dakota, I want one!

What about Wyo then? It seems logical thatthese
larger boats would have "rocker" aft since planing
them seems wasteful.

--- "Harry W. James" <welshman@...> wrote:

<HR>
<html><body>

<tt>
I thought so too until Vince corrected me. Dakota has
rocker, though it 
doesn't show well in the profile drawing in the files. <

______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca

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.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Shouldn't that be without any warranty in the US? I
mean if it does something really bad, and you deserve
to have it changed out, you could send it back to
CANADA. In any case some states may have a view on
what warranty is implied localy.

....

> Best price I evr found was 
> $4500 pluss shipping and extras from Ontario

without any waranty

> since Yamaaha US and Yamaha Canada are different

companies. 
 

______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca

> I can't question the details of your list, but where are you
> going to get a Yamaha T50 for $3500?

Let me add my voice to this; I've been hunting high and low for
an under-$6k solution to the Yamaha T50 problem, as it's the
high-end motor option on the Insolent 60. I may have to go
with a 25, or something in between, for lack of finding any
of these anywhere outside a Yamaha dealer....

> Best price I evr found was
> $4500 pluss shipping and extras from Ontario without any waranty
> since Yamaaha US and Yamaha Canada are different companies.

Rrrrreally? Hmmm. I have enough friends in Ontario that I could
run up and fetch such a beast (and use them as my address for
warranty etc.); $4500 could almost be doable. Hmm.

-- Sue --
(even if it is three times the cost of my tow vehicle)

--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>

I believe it's the Sonic Cat stern drive on the Tahiti

Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: brucehallman
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 4:18 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

--- In bolger@y..., "tom28571" <harbinger@c...> wrote:
> get a Yamaha T50 for $3500? Best price I evr found was $4500 pluss
...
> necessary extras and tax, the total came to near $6750.

SA mentioned in her phone call that they also recommended the use of
an aircooled diesel engine and a I/O power drive unit. This is what
appears to be used in Tahati in the recent MAIB article.

As my best guess, the exact engine they are talking about is the
Deutz F3L912, 3 cyl 47 hp. [about 24" x 24" x 30"] These engines
seem to be available for less than $5,000. Searching for this engine
on Google shows that it is used widely all over the world, and is
very popular in welders, generators and other construction equipment
in the US. This engine seems to have an excellent reputation for
durability and simplicity.

I wonder which I/O power drive unit is used on Tahati?

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.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bruce, it's listed in the writeup on bolger2. Also, I've seen these
Deutz units sold for less in farm publications for use in stationary
equipment; might also be a source of a good used one, as well.

David Romasco

-----Original Message-----
From: brucehallman [mailto:brucehallman@...]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 6:19 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: Dakota, I want one!

--- In bolger@y..., "tom28571" <harbinger@c...> wrote:
> get a Yamaha T50 for $3500? Best price I evr found was $4500 pluss
...
> necessary extras and tax, the total came to near $6750.

SA mentioned in her phone call that they also recommended the use of
an aircooled diesel engine and a I/O power drive unit. This is what
appears to be used in Tahati in the recent MAIB article.

As my best guess, the exact engine they are talking about is the
Deutz F3L912, 3 cyl 47 hp. [about 24" x 24" x 30"] These engines
seem to be available for less than $5,000. Searching for this engine
on Google shows that it is used widely all over the world, and is
very popular in welders, generators and other construction equipment
in the US. This engine seems to have an excellent reputation for
durability and simplicity.

I wonder which I/O power drive unit is used on Tahati?

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705
065791:HM/A=1042587/R=0/*http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=2915
0849&siteid=39282504&bfpage=account>

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=1042587/rand=401736662>

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
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What about Wyo then? It seems logical thatthese
larger boats would have "rocker" aft since planing
them seems wasteful.

--- "Harry W. James" <welshman@...> wrote:

<HR>
<html><body>

<tt>
I thought so too until Vince corrected me. Dakota has
rocker, though it 
doesn't show well in the profile drawing in the files. <

______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca

I thought so too until Vince corrected me. Dakota has rocker, though it
doesn't show well in the profile drawing in the files.

HJ

thomas dalzell wrote:

>
> I don't claim to know, but thought only Tennessee was
> a displacement hull, and the rest were flat aft.
> Certainly Sneak is flat, and Wyo. is supposedly just
> her writ large. There is really a minimal difference
> in the lines, one could adapt a Tennesse type run to
> any boat one wanted to. They are basicaly just
> circular sections, that rise from the fat point to the
> transom. The transom is out of the water say a half
> station, one could check that with a Tennessee
> picture. All structural factors would be improved.
> Displacement would fall, and new centers of all the
> weights would have to be calculate.
>
> --- Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...> wrote:
>
> <HR>
>

I don't claim to know, but thought only Tennessee was
a displacement hull, and the rest were flat aft.
Certainly Sneak is flat, and Wyo. is supposedly just
her writ large. There is really a minimal difference
in the lines, one could adapt a Tennesse type run to
any boat one wanted to. They are basicaly just
circular sections, that rise from the fat point to the
transom. The transom is out of the water say a half
station, one could check that with a Tennessee
picture. All structural factors would be improved.
Displacement would fall, and new centers of all the
weights would have to be calculate.

--- Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...> wrote:

<HR>
<html><body>

<tt>
I have heard about Dakota, but never seen so much as
a 
profile drawing of her. She is a displacement
hull, 
correct? Otherwise, similar to other
"state" series 
boats, with plumb stem, vertical sides, etc? Is
she 
rockered all the way aft? Any pictures or
drawings of 
her available? 
 
--- brucehallman <brucehallman@...>
wrote:

> <grin> 
> 
> I just got a handwritten letter from Phil Bolger,

in

> response to my 
> inquiry about the suitability of using Champlain

for

> coastal passages 
> on the west coast. He and Ms. Altenburger

say no,

> and recommend a 
> Dakota, design #624. I'm looking at these

drawings,

> and here is a 
> rough estimate... 
> 
> 
> plans....................................

$300

>

bottom....20.....sheets...1/2"..acx...$18.$360

> top.......10.....sheets...1/2"..acx

$18. $180

> sides.....10.....sheets...1/2"..mdo $30..

$300

> interior..10.....sheets...1/2"..mdo $30..

$300

> Yamaha T-50............................

$3,500

>

Windows...20.....ea..............$50....$1,000

>

cloth....160.....yards..........$5.50.....$880

>

epoxy.....30.....gallons.......$55......$1,650

>

oak......130.....bf.............$4........$520

> misc (glue, nails, hardware, more).....

$1,200

> steering

junk.............................$500

> toilet lights stove

etc...................$800

>

cushions..................................$700

> trucking to

water.........................$300

>

===============================================

>

.......................................$12,490

> 
> Much more boat than a Topaz, same motor, no

trailer,

> 20% more $$$. 
> Not as good looking as a Topaz, but not bad

looking

> either. More of 
> a cruiser, less of a camper. 
> 
> Is there anything here omitted or wildly

wrong?

> 
>

__________________________________________________ 
Do You Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax 
<a
href="http://taxes.yahoo.com/">http://taxes.yahoo.com/</a> 
</tt>

 



<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><table border=0
cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0><tr><td align=center>ADVERTISEMENT <a
href="http://rd.yahoo.com/M=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=1042587/R=0/*http://service.bfast.com/bfast/click?bfmid=29150849&siteid=39282504&bfpage=account"
target=_top><img
src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ne/netstock_direct/300x250_green_april.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=217097.2003762.3481930.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=1705065791:HM/A=1042587/rand=389927659"></td></tr>
</table>



 
<tt>
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</tt>
 

 
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>


</body></html>

______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca

--- In bolger@y..., "tom28571" <harbinger@c...> wrote:

> get a Yamaha T50 for $3500? Best price I evr found was $4500 pluss

...

> necessary extras and tax, the total came to near $6750.

SA mentioned in her phone call that they also recommended the use of
an aircooled diesel engine and a I/O power drive unit. This is what
appears to be used in Tahati in the recent MAIB article.

As my best guess, the exact engine they are talking about is the
Deutz F3L912, 3 cyl 47 hp. [about 24" x 24" x 30"] These engines
seem to be available for less than $5,000. Searching for this engine
on Google shows that it is used widely all over the world, and is
very popular in welders, generators and other construction equipment
in the US. This engine seems to have an excellent reputation for
durability and simplicity.

I wonder which I/O power drive unit is used on Tahati?

I can't question the details of your list, but where are you going to
get a Yamaha T50 for $3500? Best price I evr found was $4500 pluss
shipping and extras from Ontario without any waranty since Yamaaha US
and Yamaha Canada are different companies. I elected to buy locally
for lack of support and paid about $6100 two years ago. With the
necessary extras and tax, the total came to near $6750.

It's a great and powerful engine, especially with the 14x11 prop but
would be magical at $3500. I've bought a brand new automobile for
less than half what the T50 cost me. Yea, that probably says more
about my age than about cars.

--- In bolger@y..., "brucehallman" <brucehallman@y...> wrote:
> <grin>
>
> I just got a handwritten letter from Phil Bolger, in response to my
> inquiry about the suitability of using Champlain for coastal
passages
> on the west coast. He and Ms. Altenburger say no, and recommend a
> Dakota, design #624. I'm looking at these drawings, and here is a
> rough estimate...
>
>
> plans.................................... $300
> bottom....20.....sheets...1/2"..acx...$18.$360
> top.......10.....sheets...1/2"..acx $18. $180
> sides.....10.....sheets...1/2"..mdo $30.. $300
> interior..10.....sheets...1/2"..mdo $30.. $300
> Yamaha T-50............................ $3,500
> Windows...20.....ea..............$50....$1,000
> cloth....160.....yards..........$5.50.....$880
> epoxy.....30.....gallons.......$55......$1,650
> oak......130.....bf.............$4........$520
> misc (glue, nails, hardware, more)..... $1,200
> steering junk.............................$500
> toilet lights stove etc...................$800
> cushions..................................$700
> trucking to water.........................$300
> ===============================================
> .......................................$12,490
>
> Much more boat than a Topaz, same motor, no trailer, 20% more $$$.
> Not as good looking as a Topaz, but not bad looking either. More
of
> a cruiser, less of a camper.
>
> Is there anything here omitted or wildly wrong?

> Further, I think that "finishing" is one of the fruitful avenues to
> economize the costs [time and money] of building a boat.

I was thinking today that if you used MDO for an interior, there
would be no need to epoxy coat any surface that would normally be
inside and dry.

In Bolger2 there's a scan of a different layout for Dakota that Phil
sketched for me as I wanted a full time double berth. It's in the
files section under Dakota.

--- In bolger@y..., "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:

> How would you compare the Champlain to the Dakota

Susan Altenburger volunteered an answer to this question, in a phone
conversation with me two weeks ago. I can't remember her exact
wording, but in general she said "about the same", with the work
necessary for the box keel in Champlain offsetting the time saved in
the more simple hull shape of the Dakota.

I thing the operative word is "about" because, the surface area to
finish in Dakota is perhaps 30% to 40% more than the Champlain, and
finishing the surfaces is a major part of the construction sequence.

Further, I think that "finishing" is one of the fruitful avenues to
economize the costs [time and money] of building a boat.

> Champlain

How would you compare the Champlain to the Dakota as far as building
time and difficulty? On a quick look, the Dakota looks much larger
but also simpler than the compact but intricate Champlain.

Peter

I have heard about Dakota, but never seen so much as a
profile drawing of her. She is a displacement hull,
correct? Otherwise, similar to other "state" series
boats, with plumb stem, vertical sides, etc? Is she
rockered all the way aft? Any pictures or drawings of
her available?

--- brucehallman <brucehallman@...> wrote:

> <grin>
>
> I just got a handwritten letter from Phil Bolger, in
> response to my
> inquiry about the suitability of using Champlain for
> coastal passages
> on the west coast. He and Ms. Altenburger say no,
> and recommend a
> Dakota, design #624. I'm looking at these drawings,
> and here is a
> rough estimate...
>
>
> plans.................................... $300
> bottom....20.....sheets...1/2"..acx...$18.$360
> top.......10.....sheets...1/2"..acx $18. $180
> sides.....10.....sheets...1/2"..mdo $30.. $300
> interior..10.....sheets...1/2"..mdo $30.. $300
> Yamaha T-50............................ $3,500
> Windows...20.....ea..............$50....$1,000
> cloth....160.....yards..........$5.50.....$880
> epoxy.....30.....gallons.......$55......$1,650
> oak......130.....bf.............$4........$520
> misc (glue, nails, hardware, more)..... $1,200
> steering junk.............................$500
> toilet lights stove etc...................$800
> cushions..................................$700
> trucking to water.........................$300
> ===============================================
> .......................................$12,490
>
> Much more boat than a Topaz, same motor, no trailer,
> 20% more $$$.
> Not as good looking as a Topaz, but not bad looking
> either. More of
> a cruiser, less of a camper.
>
> Is there anything here omitted or wildly wrong?
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

<grin>

I just got a handwritten letter from Phil Bolger, in response to my
inquiry about the suitability of using Champlain for coastal passages
on the west coast. He and Ms. Altenburger say no, and recommend a
Dakota, design #624. I'm looking at these drawings, and here is a
rough estimate...

plans.................................... $300
bottom....20.....sheets...1/2"..acx...$18.$360
top.......10.....sheets...1/2"..acx $18. $180
sides.....10.....sheets...1/2"..mdo $30.. $300
interior..10.....sheets...1/2"..mdo $30.. $300
Yamaha T-50............................ $3,500
Windows...20.....ea..............$50....$1,000
cloth....160.....yards..........$5.50.....$880
epoxy.....30.....gallons.......$55......$1,650
oak......130.....bf.............$4........$520
misc (glue, nails, hardware, more)..... $1,200
steering junk.............................$500
toilet lights stove etc...................$800
cushions..................................$700
trucking to water.........................$300
===============================================
.......................................$12,490

Much more boat than a Topaz, same motor, no trailer, 20% more $$$.
Not as good looking as a Topaz, but not bad looking either. More of
a cruiser, less of a camper.

Is there anything here omitted or wildly wrong?