Re: [bolger] now hull speed, was Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
In a message dated 6/4/02 7:26:53 AM Central Daylight Time,
lincolnr@...writes:
Boats". Payson refers to is as "Paddlin' Madeline". It's a slender "box",
19' 6" LOA (Length Over All), perhaps 18' or so LWL (?Length Water Line?;
?Load Waterline Length?) (I'm beginning to get the point about "AIA" (or is
it AAI?) !!), with pedal operated side paddle wheels. It is obviously much
more hydrodynamically efficient than the production pedal powered commercial
paddle boats I've seen, not to mention more aesthetically pleasing. As an
example of Bolger's ingenuity I find it entertaining and instructive, but I
can't say that I would ever contemplate ever building one.
Payson does claim that he and the fellow who commissioned the design and
construction were able to get it "up to a steady seven knots with no
strain". (The boat has side-by-seating for two pedalers.) "Dynamite"
wouldn't exaggerate, would he? I haven't tried to run the numbers on
"Paddlin' Madeline" - for one thing, the photo of it in operation shows a bag
containing an indeterminate weight of rocks hanging from outside the gunnel
to keep the boat on an even keel given the disparity of the weight between
Payson and the owner, for another, he doesn't list their weights, and for a
third, Gerr's "Propeller Handbook" doesn't include any formulae for paddle
wheels!
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
(very strong ammonia smell emanating from the kitchen from some very old WEST
epoxy! Hope the stuff cures?)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lincolnr@...writes:
> Sometimes I think aboutHave you seen Bolger's design # 441? It's in Payson's "Build The New Instant
> building my own pedal powered boat since I can't do sliding seat stuff
> anymore. Maybe even a super skinny flatty with vertical sides, tho of
> course the increased wetted area would hurt some.
>
Boats". Payson refers to is as "Paddlin' Madeline". It's a slender "box",
19' 6" LOA (Length Over All), perhaps 18' or so LWL (?Length Water Line?;
?Load Waterline Length?) (I'm beginning to get the point about "AIA" (or is
it AAI?) !!), with pedal operated side paddle wheels. It is obviously much
more hydrodynamically efficient than the production pedal powered commercial
paddle boats I've seen, not to mention more aesthetically pleasing. As an
example of Bolger's ingenuity I find it entertaining and instructive, but I
can't say that I would ever contemplate ever building one.
Payson does claim that he and the fellow who commissioned the design and
construction were able to get it "up to a steady seven knots with no
strain". (The boat has side-by-seating for two pedalers.) "Dynamite"
wouldn't exaggerate, would he? I haven't tried to run the numbers on
"Paddlin' Madeline" - for one thing, the photo of it in operation shows a bag
containing an indeterminate weight of rocks hanging from outside the gunnel
to keep the boat on an even keel given the disparity of the weight between
Payson and the owner, for another, he doesn't list their weights, and for a
third, Gerr's "Propeller Handbook" doesn't include any formulae for paddle
wheels!
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
(very strong ammonia smell emanating from the kitchen from some very old WEST
epoxy! Hope the stuff cures?)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Three(or Two) Letter Acronym
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nickerson, Bruce " <nickerb@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: [bolger] now hull speed, was Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
> When I managed a tech writing department in the defense industry, we were
> inundated with abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms. I even had a 400
> page book listing all these AAIs. My favorite was PLU (Preservation of
> Locational Uncertainty) which referred to storing ICBMs on flat bed rail
> trucks so that their location could be changed frequently. Some managers
> who could never be found were then said to be managing by PLU. However
used
> I got to using AAIs, I will admit to having trouble understanding what
"The
> TLA's like BTW or D/L are part of the WWW, though D/L is a boating TLA..."
> means. I think WWW is world wide web, BTW is by the way, but fall apart
on
> TLA.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stew Miller [mailto:junkmail@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 12:00 PM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bolger] now hull speed, was Re: mast options for Ruben's
Nymph
>
>
>
> Richard,
> You forgot to define TLA, which is yet another TLA.
>
> FYI, when you hire on at SUN Microsystems you must memorize three pages
> of TLAs.
>
> Richard Spelling wrote:
> > The TLA's like BTW or D/L are part of the WWW, though D/L is a boating
> TLA,
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=17050657
>
91:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1023206582%3eM=22
> 6014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=1000239/R=1>
>
>
>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupmai
> l/S=1705065791:HM/A=1000239/rand=417682374>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no "Ed, thanks, Fred" posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - 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]
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no "Ed, thanks, Fred" posts
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
> - 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/
>
>
>
Richard,
You forgot to define TLA, which is yet another TLA.
FYI, when you hire on at SUN Microsystems you must memorize three pages
of TLAs.
Richard Spelling wrote:
You forgot to define TLA, which is yet another TLA.
FYI, when you hire on at SUN Microsystems you must memorize three pages
of TLAs.
Richard Spelling wrote:
> The TLA's like BTW or D/L are part of the WWW, though D/L is a boating TLA,
The TLA's like BTW or D/L are part of the WWW, though D/L is a boating TLA,
referring to the ratio of displacement in LB verses length, LWL, in FT.
:-)
http://www.sailingusa.info/cal__dl_ratio.htm
referring to the ratio of displacement in LB verses length, LWL, in FT.
:-)
http://www.sailingusa.info/cal__dl_ratio.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nickerson, Bruce " <nickerb@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 7:44 AM
Subject: RE: [bolger] now hull speed, was Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
> While I find this technical stuff interesting, I am a bit boggled by the
> abbreviations, initialisms and acronyms here abounding. These AIAs
> (acronyms, initialisms and abbreviations) are not only confusing to me,
but
> I sometimes cannot understand if they are technical terms from the topic
> under discussion, or cyber-speak (like BTW). Anyone else have this
concern
> and some suggestions about how to ease this pain?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:wmrpage@...[mailto:wmrpage@...]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 10:25 PM
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bolger] now hull speed, was Re: mast options for Ruben's
Nymph
>
>
> In a message dated 5/31/02 9:43:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
>lincolnr@...writes:
>
>
> > BTW, if I got your equations right, a good single scull would have
> > "D/L" of less than 15. I have seen a "wakeless launch" which probably
> > has a "D/L" of around 30, scoot around at maybe 15 knots or so with
> > practically no wake. See:
> >http://www.stillwaterdesign.com/Pics/older25c.jpg
> <http://www.stillwaterdesign.com/Pics/older25c.jpg>
> >
>
> My Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet tells me that a 21' scull with an all-up weight
> of
> 311 lbs. gives a D/L of 15, so I think you got your sums right. I was
> surprised and intrigued by your observation!
>
> Gerr's formulae indicate that this hypothetical scull has a maximum S/L of
> 3.6, which translates into a "non-planing" top speed of 16.5 Kts. His
> displacement SHP formula indicates that it would take approx. .6 SHP to go
6
>
> Kts., possibly attainable by a highly-trained and strong rower, I suppose.
> Just how reliable Gerr's formulae are for very low D/L boats at high S/L
> ratios is questionable, however, as application of the formulae to the
> Stillwater catamaran shows. The displacement formula seems to overstate
> power
> requirements at high S/L ratios, while the Crouch (planing) formula seems
to
>
> understate power requirements at lower S/L ratios.
>
> The Stillwater catamaran is 26' LWL. It has a claimed top speed of 18 Kts.
> w/15 SHP long-shaft O/B motor. I assume that the claimed top speed is
> accurate, probably a bit conservative - obviously it is a quantity
> relatively
> easily verified by a buyer who could be expected to complain if the claim
> was
> not met. (Do you have any insight into why the design requires a
long-shaft
> motor?)
>
> I've estimated it's gross displacement at 1300# (4 x 200# adults + 15hp
O/B
> motor + 5 gal. gas tank) or 900# (2 x 200# adults + 15hp O/B motor + 5
gal.
> gas tank). This gives D/L ratios of 33 and 23, respectively, S/L maximums
of
>
> 2.8 and 3.1, which translate to 14.3 Kts and 15.6 Kts top speed. Gerr's
> displacement SHP formula gives, respectively, SHP requirements of these
> speeds as 23.9 SHP and 22.4 SHP. Conversely, calculated top speeds for 15
> SHP
> are 12.2 Kts and something in excess of 13.8 Kts.
>
> Crouch's formula for planing boats (I'm rather arbitrarily using C = 200)
> gives speeds of something less than 16 Kts. and 19.4 Kts. respectively for
> 15
> SHP. Interestingly, at this power level, the lighter-loaded boat
approaches
> the 60#/SHP ratio that is the highest #/SHP ratio that Gerr shows on his
> Crouch chart.
>
> One could reasonably infer that the performance of low D/L boats at high
S/L
>
> ratios falls somewhere in between the displacement SHP curve and the
Crouch
> SHP curve, perhaps approximating the first up to a certain speed and
> approximating the second after that, but I've run innumerable graphs
> comparing the two curves for various hypothetical boats and have not
> detected
> any significant relationship in where the divergence point between the two
> curves occurs.
>
> Gerr does not discuss the source of the displacement formula he uses. I
> suspect it is derived from tests on full scale naval and maritime merchant
> vessels, supplemented by model tests of similar types at the U.S.N. Taylor
> basin. Crouch's formula seems to be empirically derived from the
performance
>
> of boats of low #/SHP ratios. If I am correct, there is a gap in the data
> for
> boats of low D/L ratios like Bolger's "Sneakeasy" and others of its ilk.
>
> I believe that the University of Illinois did some wind tunnel testing of
> airfoils at low-Reynold's numbers that is of considerable interest to
model
> airplane builders, while totally devoid of pertinence to commercial
airplane
>
> designers. One can hope that perhaps, someday, some suitably equiped
> engineering faculty might turn its sights on the phenomenom of low D/L
> boats,
> like "Sneakeasy".
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> I've epoxy to mix,
> 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 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/
>
>
>
It has been many years since I could put out .6hp. I bet it was less
than .2 or .3, as I was going at a rate that I could sustain for
several minutes at least. It's possible I was going much slower than 6
knots, but I bet the formula is off. Or maybe I just needed to add
scale barnacles and rivets. It's amazing how much slower a boat like
this feels if it picks up even a small bit of weed. ANother
possibility is that the hull shape for a scull or the Stillwater cat
is far more optimized for high speed than a ship's would be.
I suspect the cat has a long shaft motor so that the top end stays out
of the water after 8 heavyweight crew members and a cox are added in
the emergency scenario.
Even a shorter, proa Stillwater boat goes plenty fast with 10 or 15
hp.
It would be fun to see some kind of homemade version of something like
this. If I was a powerboater I think it would be really fun to zip by
people at high speed with a tiny engine. Sometimes I think about
building my own pedal powered boat since I can't do sliding seat stuff
anymore. Maybe even a super skinny flatty with vertical sides, tho of
course the increased wetted area would hurt some.
than .2 or .3, as I was going at a rate that I could sustain for
several minutes at least. It's possible I was going much slower than 6
knots, but I bet the formula is off. Or maybe I just needed to add
scale barnacles and rivets. It's amazing how much slower a boat like
this feels if it picks up even a small bit of weed. ANother
possibility is that the hull shape for a scull or the Stillwater cat
is far more optimized for high speed than a ship's would be.
I suspect the cat has a long shaft motor so that the top end stays out
of the water after 8 heavyweight crew members and a cox are added in
the emergency scenario.
Even a shorter, proa Stillwater boat goes plenty fast with 10 or 15
hp.
It would be fun to see some kind of homemade version of something like
this. If I was a powerboater I think it would be really fun to zip by
people at high speed with a tiny engine. Sometimes I think about
building my own pedal powered boat since I can't do sliding seat stuff
anymore. Maybe even a super skinny flatty with vertical sides, tho of
course the increased wetted area would hurt some.
--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:
snip
> Gerr's formulae indicate that this hypothetical scull has a maximum
S/L of
> 3.6, which translates into a "non-planing" top speed of 16.5 Kts.
His
> displacement SHP formula indicates that it would take approx. .6 SHP
to go 6
> Kts., possibly attainable by a highly-trained and strong rower, I
suppose.
snip
>
> The Stillwater catamaran is 26' LWL. Isnip(Do you have any insight
into why the design requires a
long-shaft
> motor?)
>
snip
> The Stillwater catamaran is 26' LWL. It has a claimed top speed of18 Kts.
> w/15 SHP long-shaft O/B motor. I assume that the claimed top speedis
> accurate, probably a bit conservative - obviously it is a quantityrelatively
> easily verified by a buyer who could be expected to complain if theclaim was
> not met. (Do you have any insight into why the design requires along-shaft
> motor?) message have been removed]I am not to sure what you mean here, but on my small cat, it has
proven much further from the aft beam to the water that my eyeball
told me. I have had to drop the fixed motor mount on several
occasions with my longshaft Nissan.
In a message dated 5/31/02 9:43:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
lincolnr@...writes:
311 lbs. gives a D/L of 15, so I think you got your sums right. I was
surprised and intrigued by your observation!
Gerr's formulae indicate that this hypothetical scull has a maximum S/L of
3.6, which translates into a "non-planing" top speed of 16.5 Kts. His
displacement SHP formula indicates that it would take approx. .6 SHP to go 6
Kts., possibly attainable by a highly-trained and strong rower, I suppose.
Just how reliable Gerr's formulae are for very low D/L boats at high S/L
ratios is questionable, however, as application of the formulae to the
Stillwater catamaran shows. The displacement formula seems to overstate power
requirements at high S/L ratios, while the Crouch (planing) formula seems to
understate power requirements at lower S/L ratios.
The Stillwater catamaran is 26' LWL. It has a claimed top speed of 18 Kts.
w/15 SHP long-shaft O/B motor. I assume that the claimed top speed is
accurate, probably a bit conservative - obviously it is a quantity relatively
easily verified by a buyer who could be expected to complain if the claim was
not met. (Do you have any insight into why the design requires a long-shaft
motor?)
I've estimated it's gross displacement at 1300# (4 x 200# adults + 15hp O/B
motor + 5 gal. gas tank) or 900# (2 x 200# adults + 15hp O/B motor + 5 gal.
gas tank). This gives D/L ratios of 33 and 23, respectively, S/L maximums of
2.8 and 3.1, which translate to 14.3 Kts and 15.6 Kts top speed. Gerr's
displacement SHP formula gives, respectively, SHP requirements of these
speeds as 23.9 SHP and 22.4 SHP. Conversely, calculated top speeds for 15 SHP
are 12.2 Kts and something in excess of 13.8 Kts.
Crouch's formula for planing boats (I'm rather arbitrarily using C = 200)
gives speeds of something less than 16 Kts. and 19.4 Kts. respectively for 15
SHP. Interestingly, at this power level, the lighter-loaded boat approaches
the 60#/SHP ratio that is the highest #/SHP ratio that Gerr shows on his
Crouch chart.
One could reasonably infer that the performance of low D/L boats at high S/L
ratios falls somewhere in between the displacement SHP curve and the Crouch
SHP curve, perhaps approximating the first up to a certain speed and
approximating the second after that, but I've run innumerable graphs
comparing the two curves for various hypothetical boats and have not detected
any significant relationship in where the divergence point between the two
curves occurs.
Gerr does not discuss the source of the displacement formula he uses. I
suspect it is derived from tests on full scale naval and maritime merchant
vessels, supplemented by model tests of similar types at the U.S.N. Taylor
basin. Crouch's formula seems to be empirically derived from the performance
of boats of low #/SHP ratios. If I am correct, there is a gap in the data for
boats of low D/L ratios like Bolger's "Sneakeasy" and others of its ilk.
I believe that the University of Illinois did some wind tunnel testing of
airfoils at low-Reynold's numbers that is of considerable interest to model
airplane builders, while totally devoid of pertinence to commercial airplane
designers. One can hope that perhaps, someday, some suitably equiped
engineering faculty might turn its sights on the phenomenom of low D/L boats,
like "Sneakeasy".
Ciao for Niao,
I've epoxy to mix,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lincolnr@...writes:
> BTW, if I got your equations right, a good single scull would haveMy Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet tells me that a 21' scull with an all-up weight of
> "D/L" of less than 15. I have seen a "wakeless launch" which probably
> has a "D/L" of around 30, scoot around at maybe 15 knots or so with
> practically no wake. See:
>http://www.stillwaterdesign.com/Pics/older25c.jpg
>
311 lbs. gives a D/L of 15, so I think you got your sums right. I was
surprised and intrigued by your observation!
Gerr's formulae indicate that this hypothetical scull has a maximum S/L of
3.6, which translates into a "non-planing" top speed of 16.5 Kts. His
displacement SHP formula indicates that it would take approx. .6 SHP to go 6
Kts., possibly attainable by a highly-trained and strong rower, I suppose.
Just how reliable Gerr's formulae are for very low D/L boats at high S/L
ratios is questionable, however, as application of the formulae to the
Stillwater catamaran shows. The displacement formula seems to overstate power
requirements at high S/L ratios, while the Crouch (planing) formula seems to
understate power requirements at lower S/L ratios.
The Stillwater catamaran is 26' LWL. It has a claimed top speed of 18 Kts.
w/15 SHP long-shaft O/B motor. I assume that the claimed top speed is
accurate, probably a bit conservative - obviously it is a quantity relatively
easily verified by a buyer who could be expected to complain if the claim was
not met. (Do you have any insight into why the design requires a long-shaft
motor?)
I've estimated it's gross displacement at 1300# (4 x 200# adults + 15hp O/B
motor + 5 gal. gas tank) or 900# (2 x 200# adults + 15hp O/B motor + 5 gal.
gas tank). This gives D/L ratios of 33 and 23, respectively, S/L maximums of
2.8 and 3.1, which translate to 14.3 Kts and 15.6 Kts top speed. Gerr's
displacement SHP formula gives, respectively, SHP requirements of these
speeds as 23.9 SHP and 22.4 SHP. Conversely, calculated top speeds for 15 SHP
are 12.2 Kts and something in excess of 13.8 Kts.
Crouch's formula for planing boats (I'm rather arbitrarily using C = 200)
gives speeds of something less than 16 Kts. and 19.4 Kts. respectively for 15
SHP. Interestingly, at this power level, the lighter-loaded boat approaches
the 60#/SHP ratio that is the highest #/SHP ratio that Gerr shows on his
Crouch chart.
One could reasonably infer that the performance of low D/L boats at high S/L
ratios falls somewhere in between the displacement SHP curve and the Crouch
SHP curve, perhaps approximating the first up to a certain speed and
approximating the second after that, but I've run innumerable graphs
comparing the two curves for various hypothetical boats and have not detected
any significant relationship in where the divergence point between the two
curves occurs.
Gerr does not discuss the source of the displacement formula he uses. I
suspect it is derived from tests on full scale naval and maritime merchant
vessels, supplemented by model tests of similar types at the U.S.N. Taylor
basin. Crouch's formula seems to be empirically derived from the performance
of boats of low #/SHP ratios. If I am correct, there is a gap in the data for
boats of low D/L ratios like Bolger's "Sneakeasy" and others of its ilk.
I believe that the University of Illinois did some wind tunnel testing of
airfoils at low-Reynold's numbers that is of considerable interest to model
airplane builders, while totally devoid of pertinence to commercial airplane
designers. One can hope that perhaps, someday, some suitably equiped
engineering faculty might turn its sights on the phenomenom of low D/L boats,
like "Sneakeasy".
Ciao for Niao,
I've epoxy to mix,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In bolger@y..., "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
enough. My contention is all boats go through the same sequence, its
just speed dependant. I haven't felt a "bump" operating trimarans,
unless we run over a wind surfer.
> > I am not quite sure what the hills and bumps are for.(horizontal
>
> Think of the graph of resistance (vertical axis) vs speed
> axis). For a heavy hull, there is a point "hull speed" where thebe
> curve goes up very steeply (the wall). For a light hull, there may
> an medium increase (the hill), and for a multi, a slight increaseFair enough, but you can plane any multi made given you push it hard
> (the bump).
>
> Peter
enough. My contention is all boats go through the same sequence, its
just speed dependant. I haven't felt a "bump" operating trimarans,
unless we run over a wind surfer.
> I am not quite sure what the hills and bumps are for.Think of the graph of resistance (vertical axis) vs speed (horizontal
axis). For a heavy hull, there is a point "hull speed" where the
curve goes up very steeply (the wall). For a light hull, there may be
an medium increase (the hill), and for a multi, a slight increase
(the bump).
Peter
Agreed, sort of. There are certain boats that diverge
markedly, like multihulls, since they don't plane at
"normal" speeds. But my assumption (I wish I knew) is
that such performance differences are on a continueum,
so really the main meaningful use is when comparing
quite similar types.
I am not quite sure what the hills and bumps are for.
<tt>
<BR>
The standard definition of "hull speed" as
given here was made up to <BR>
apply to fairly heavy boats of normal length/beam
dimensions. The <BR>
hull speed concept applies less strictly for very
light boats and for <BR>
very slender boats (as sculls and multihulls). <BR>
<BR>
A sailboat of the Herreshoff era with a
Displacement/Length ratio of <BR>
about 400 would hit a wall at hull speed. A modern
racing sailboat <BR>
hits a hill. A catamaran proabably hits a bump.<BR>
<BR>
Peter<BR>
<BR>
Notes: a) since people argue about most anything, they
argue about <BR>
the exact value of the parameter given here as 1.4, b)
<BR>
Displacement/Length ratio is not a simple division,
but involves some <BR>
unit-changing conversion which I do not remember off
the top of my <BR>
head. See Ted Brewer's web site.<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<tt>
Bolger rules!!!<BR>
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
dead horses<BR>
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on
topic, and punctuate<BR>
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts,
snip all you like<BR>
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>
- Unsubscribe:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
markedly, like multihulls, since they don't plane at
"normal" speeds. But my assumption (I wish I knew) is
that such performance differences are on a continueum,
so really the main meaningful use is when comparing
quite similar types.
I am not quite sure what the hills and bumps are for.
<tt>
> The limitation on hull speed in the displacementmode<BR>
> is 1.4 x the square root of the waterlinelength. <BR>
<BR>
The standard definition of "hull speed" as
given here was made up to <BR>
apply to fairly heavy boats of normal length/beam
dimensions. The <BR>
hull speed concept applies less strictly for very
light boats and for <BR>
very slender boats (as sculls and multihulls). <BR>
<BR>
A sailboat of the Herreshoff era with a
Displacement/Length ratio of <BR>
about 400 would hit a wall at hull speed. A modern
racing sailboat <BR>
hits a hill. A catamaran proabably hits a bump.<BR>
<BR>
Peter<BR>
<BR>
Notes: a) since people argue about most anything, they
argue about <BR>
the exact value of the parameter given here as 1.4, b)
<BR>
Displacement/Length ratio is not a simple division,
but involves some <BR>
unit-changing conversion which I do not remember off
the top of my <BR>
head. See Ted Brewer's web site.<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<tt>
Bolger rules!!!<BR>
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging
dead horses<BR>
- pls take "personals" off-list, stay on
topic, and punctuate<BR>
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts,
snip all you like<BR>
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209,
Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349<BR>
- Unsubscribe:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms
of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
Pete,
Not an exact hit on your questions but ....
I have a sail rig on my regular-sized Nymph and it sails just fine. It is
tippy when you're getting in but not unmanagably so -- I can climb over the
side in 2+ feet of water (rudder doesn't pivot) without swamping. I've
sailed it in a fair amount (15-20 mph w/ white caps) of wind and it's really
very stable. The fact that I weigh over 200 lbs has a lot to do with it and
I think that a kid alone would have to treat it with more respect. I "hike
out" by leaning 6" to windward. Add my 150 lb son to me and the sucker is
really stable. The main problem I have with it is that, while the
longitudinal (sp?) seat works fine for rowing, it doesn't leave much room
for feet when sailing. I've been tempted to try the alternative
gap-in-the-middle seat that comes with the plans but haven't gotten around
to it yet.
A couple of pictures at
http://home.internetcds.com/~lgbarker/nymph/nymph.html
Larry
Not an exact hit on your questions but ....
I have a sail rig on my regular-sized Nymph and it sails just fine. It is
tippy when you're getting in but not unmanagably so -- I can climb over the
side in 2+ feet of water (rudder doesn't pivot) without swamping. I've
sailed it in a fair amount (15-20 mph w/ white caps) of wind and it's really
very stable. The fact that I weigh over 200 lbs has a lot to do with it and
I think that a kid alone would have to treat it with more respect. I "hike
out" by leaning 6" to windward. Add my 150 lb son to me and the sucker is
really stable. The main problem I have with it is that, while the
longitudinal (sp?) seat works fine for rowing, it doesn't leave much room
for feet when sailing. I've been tempted to try the alternative
gap-in-the-middle seat that comes with the plans but haven't gotten around
to it yet.
A couple of pictures at
http://home.internetcds.com/~lgbarker/nymph/nymph.html
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "petehodges" <petehodges@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 12:08 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
> This thread has had a wonderful life so far and has covered many
> subjects.
>
> It looks like one of my original questions has been lost in the
> threads evolution.
>
> Has anybody sailed a Ruben's Nymph? Does the additional width
> significantly reduce the tippiness reported from Nymph owners?
>
> Thanks,
> Pete
No theory, it happened. I am not a highly trained athlete, nor was I
then, but I could row without tipping over! 6 knots or so is easy in a
good single scull. Waves are only just beginning to be a factor in
resistance, and are still quite small. Scull was maybe 21 feet. The
inflatable was filming, not racing, but was definitely planing. I'm
not sure it's fair to use waterline length at speed, because if you're
planing it tends to be very short BECAUSE you're planing. BTW, the two
people on the inflatable WERE highly trained athletes!
THe motorboats could overtake at will, if they were willing to be
obnoxious and throw a big wake.
BTW, if I got your equations right, a good single scull would have
"D/L" of less than 15. I have seen a "wakeless launch" which probably
has a "D/L" of around 30, scoot around at maybe 15 knots or so with
practically no wake. See:
http://www.stillwaterdesign.com/Pics/older25c.jpg
(I'm biased, I helped build these for a week.)
I think for many purposes this would be a practical boat. Not for
water skiing, tho, as the motor would be much too small.
then, but I could row without tipping over! 6 knots or so is easy in a
good single scull. Waves are only just beginning to be a factor in
resistance, and are still quite small. Scull was maybe 21 feet. The
inflatable was filming, not racing, but was definitely planing. I'm
not sure it's fair to use waterline length at speed, because if you're
planing it tends to be very short BECAUSE you're planing. BTW, the two
people on the inflatable WERE highly trained athletes!
THe motorboats could overtake at will, if they were willing to be
obnoxious and throw a big wake.
BTW, if I got your equations right, a good single scull would have
"D/L" of less than 15. I have seen a "wakeless launch" which probably
has a "D/L" of around 30, scoot around at maybe 15 knots or so with
practically no wake. See:
http://www.stillwaterdesign.com/Pics/older25c.jpg
(I'm biased, I helped build these for a week.)
I think for many purposes this would be a practical boat. Not for
water skiing, tho, as the motor would be much too small.
--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:
snip
>
> There is nothing THEORETICALLY impossible about a couch-potato in a
> motor-powered inflatable planing in an unsuccessful effort to catch
a highly
> trained athlete in a rowing shell that is operating in a
displacement S/L
> mode. (The emphasis on "THEORETICALLY" is intended.) To wit:
>
> I don't know the length of the shell in question, but if 18' long
and
> travelling at 6 kts., its S/L ratio works out to 1.4, well within
> displacement speed for most reasonably proportioned vessels. (S/L =
speed in
> KTS divided by the square root of the waterline in FEET. It seems
odd how
> these awkward (i.e. non-metric) units work so elegantly for this
problem!)
>
> The inflatable, under power, with the couch-potato sitting aft and
twisting
> the throttle, might have an effective waterline length of 4'. At 6
kts, this
> equates to S/L of 3.0, well above planing speed for almost all
vessels.
> VOILA! Rower vanquishes "planing" motorboat! (at least for a while)
In the RN plans packet, PCB states the minimum oar size to be eight
feet. In response to the RN standing up to sail, the sail in the plans
is 59 square feet, the same as for Gypsy, at 16 feet by 4 feet, which
is a lot more than I have seen for similar size (Length), dinks.
--Brad
feet. In response to the RN standing up to sail, the sail in the plans
is 59 square feet, the same as for Gypsy, at 16 feet by 4 feet, which
is a lot more than I have seen for similar size (Length), dinks.
--Brad
--- In bolger@y..., "recree8" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> Hi Pete, From looking at the hull cross section I would suggest that
> the RN stiffens up considerably once it heels enough to emerse the
> upper chine. A "tippy" boat (one with low initial stability)rows
> easily because of the reduced wetted surface when kept level and
> upright. When it becomes heeled the waterline length increases and
> it's final stability starts to come into play because a broader cross
> section is immersed.
>
> Also the fact that PCB has designed a sail rig usually means it can
> be sailed. I would also be interested in a breakdown mast assembly.
> Perhaps the solent lug is the best but it is more complicated. The
> other option might be to just rent a sunfish rig and see how it works.
>
> It is a very handy rig! Nice to know how you make out. I like the RN
> but I wonder how lon an oar it requires?
>
>
> >
> >
In a message dated 5/31/02 11:16:05 AM Central Daylight Time,
proaconstrictor@...writes:
about the unlikelihood of "planing" anything with a MinnKota. I just HATE it
when I'm unintentionally obnoxious. (Being obnoxious on purpose is another
matter.) To the recently ennumerated sin of spell checking after sending
e-mail, I would add the sin, probably as old as writing itself, of not
carefully reading matter before shooting off at the mouth (or stylus or
keyboard or whatever). Please accept my sincere apology if I gave offense.
I probably also owe an apology to the party inquiring about the sailing
characteristics of Ruben's Nymph as well, for at least participating in, if
not instigating, this excurcus into off-topic stuff. I'm kind of sorry about
that, but I have to admit I have enjoyed the detour. (Heaven help the poor
soul who tries to find anything germane on this sitd using the "search"
function!) For the record, if I had even a half-baked notion about the
design's sailing perfomance, much less any experience, I would have shared
it.
There is nothing THEORETICALLY impossible about a couch-potato in a
motor-powered inflatable planing in an unsuccessful effort to catch a highly
trained athlete in a rowing shell that is operating in a displacement S/L
mode. (The emphasis on "THEORETICALLY" is intended.) To wit:
I don't know the length of the shell in question, but if 18' long and
travelling at 6 kts., its S/L ratio works out to 1.4, well within
displacement speed for most reasonably proportioned vessels. (S/L = speed in
KTS divided by the square root of the waterline in FEET. It seems odd how
these awkward (i.e. non-metric) units work so elegantly for this problem!)
The inflatable, under power, with the couch-potato sitting aft and twisting
the throttle, might have an effective waterline length of 4'. At 6 kts, this
equates to S/L of 3.0, well above planing speed for almost all vessels.
VOILA! Rower vanquishes "planing" motorboat! (at least for a while)
The observation that maximum S/L is a function of D/L is correct. Gerr's
chart in the "Propeller Handbook"* shows a maximum S/L of 1.4 corresponding
to a D/L of 300. (D/L = displacement in LONG TONS (i.e. 2240 lbs.) divided by
the cube of the product of 0.01 times the LWL.) (Talk about f***ing awkward
units of measure!) The same chart indicates that vessel with a D/L of 20
could achieve an S/L of 3.2 without planing! Whether any practical vessel
could be constructed with such a low D/L seems doubtful. However, I think it
is the low D/L ratios of Bolger's Sneakeasy and its ilk that make them such
surprising performers.
* Dave Gerr, Propeller Handbook, IMPC, Camden, Maine, 1989 - I heartily
recommend this book to anyone who is interested in quantitative measures of
boat performance. With Gerr's formulae and a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet or
equivalent, one can spend hours in reasonably harmless fun quantifying the
properties of hypothetical boats.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
proaconstrictor@...writes:
> The limitation on hull speed in the displacement modeOh Dear! It appears I may have been unintentionally obnoxious in my remark
> is 1.4 x the square root of the waterline length. So
> a boat with a WLL of 36' would have a top speed of 8.4
> knots.
>
about the unlikelihood of "planing" anything with a MinnKota. I just HATE it
when I'm unintentionally obnoxious. (Being obnoxious on purpose is another
matter.) To the recently ennumerated sin of spell checking after sending
e-mail, I would add the sin, probably as old as writing itself, of not
carefully reading matter before shooting off at the mouth (or stylus or
keyboard or whatever). Please accept my sincere apology if I gave offense.
I probably also owe an apology to the party inquiring about the sailing
characteristics of Ruben's Nymph as well, for at least participating in, if
not instigating, this excurcus into off-topic stuff. I'm kind of sorry about
that, but I have to admit I have enjoyed the detour. (Heaven help the poor
soul who tries to find anything germane on this sitd using the "search"
function!) For the record, if I had even a half-baked notion about the
design's sailing perfomance, much less any experience, I would have shared
it.
There is nothing THEORETICALLY impossible about a couch-potato in a
motor-powered inflatable planing in an unsuccessful effort to catch a highly
trained athlete in a rowing shell that is operating in a displacement S/L
mode. (The emphasis on "THEORETICALLY" is intended.) To wit:
I don't know the length of the shell in question, but if 18' long and
travelling at 6 kts., its S/L ratio works out to 1.4, well within
displacement speed for most reasonably proportioned vessels. (S/L = speed in
KTS divided by the square root of the waterline in FEET. It seems odd how
these awkward (i.e. non-metric) units work so elegantly for this problem!)
The inflatable, under power, with the couch-potato sitting aft and twisting
the throttle, might have an effective waterline length of 4'. At 6 kts, this
equates to S/L of 3.0, well above planing speed for almost all vessels.
VOILA! Rower vanquishes "planing" motorboat! (at least for a while)
The observation that maximum S/L is a function of D/L is correct. Gerr's
chart in the "Propeller Handbook"* shows a maximum S/L of 1.4 corresponding
to a D/L of 300. (D/L = displacement in LONG TONS (i.e. 2240 lbs.) divided by
the cube of the product of 0.01 times the LWL.) (Talk about f***ing awkward
units of measure!) The same chart indicates that vessel with a D/L of 20
could achieve an S/L of 3.2 without planing! Whether any practical vessel
could be constructed with such a low D/L seems doubtful. However, I think it
is the low D/L ratios of Bolger's Sneakeasy and its ilk that make them such
surprising performers.
* Dave Gerr, Propeller Handbook, IMPC, Camden, Maine, 1989 - I heartily
recommend this book to anyone who is interested in quantitative measures of
boat performance. With Gerr's formulae and a Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet or
equivalent, one can spend hours in reasonably harmless fun quantifying the
properties of hypothetical boats.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Pete, From looking at the hull cross section I would suggest that
the RN stiffens up considerably once it heels enough to emerse the
upper chine. A "tippy" boat (one with low initial stability)rows
easily because of the reduced wetted surface when kept level and
upright. When it becomes heeled the waterline length increases and
it's final stability starts to come into play because a broader cross
section is immersed.
Also the fact that PCB has designed a sail rig usually means it can
be sailed. I would also be interested in a breakdown mast assembly.
Perhaps the solent lug is the best but it is more complicated. The
other option might be to just rent a sunfish rig and see how it works.
It is a very handy rig! Nice to know how you make out. I like the RN
but I wonder how lon an oar it requires?
Nels
the RN stiffens up considerably once it heels enough to emerse the
upper chine. A "tippy" boat (one with low initial stability)rows
easily because of the reduced wetted surface when kept level and
upright. When it becomes heeled the waterline length increases and
it's final stability starts to come into play because a broader cross
section is immersed.
Also the fact that PCB has designed a sail rig usually means it can
be sailed. I would also be interested in a breakdown mast assembly.
Perhaps the solent lug is the best but it is more complicated. The
other option might be to just rent a sunfish rig and see how it works.
It is a very handy rig! Nice to know how you make out. I like the RN
but I wonder how lon an oar it requires?
Nels
--- In bolger@y..., "petehodges" <petehodges@y...> wrote:
> This thread has had a wonderful life so far and has covered many
> subjects.
>
> It looks like one of my original questions has been lost in the
> threads evolution.
>
> Has anybody sailed a Ruben's Nymph? Does the additional width
> significantly reduce the tippiness reported from Nymph owners?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pete
Wait! That's not all! Will Reuben's Nymph plane if powered by a Seagull
Outboard?
-----Original Message-----
From: petehodges [mailto:petehodges@...]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 3:09 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
This thread has had a wonderful life so far and has covered many
subjects.
It looks like one of my original questions has been lost in the
threads evolution.
Has anybody sailed a Ruben's Nymph? Does the additional width
significantly reduce the tippiness reported from Nymph owners?
Thanks,
Pete
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=17050657
91:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1022872149%3eM=22
6014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=1000239/R=1>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupmai
l/S=1705065791:HM/A=1000239/rand=814931190>
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]
Outboard?
-----Original Message-----
From: petehodges [mailto:petehodges@...]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 3:09 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
This thread has had a wonderful life so far and has covered many
subjects.
It looks like one of my original questions has been lost in the
threads evolution.
Has anybody sailed a Ruben's Nymph? Does the additional width
significantly reduce the tippiness reported from Nymph owners?
Thanks,
Pete
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=17050657
91:HM/A=1000239/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1022872149%3eM=22
6014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupweb/S=1705065791:HM/A=1000239/R=1>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=226014.2032696.3508022.1829184/D=egroupmai
l/S=1705065791:HM/A=1000239/rand=814931190>
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]
This thread has had a wonderful life so far and has covered many
subjects.
It looks like one of my original questions has been lost in the
threads evolution.
Has anybody sailed a Ruben's Nymph? Does the additional width
significantly reduce the tippiness reported from Nymph owners?
Thanks,
Pete
subjects.
It looks like one of my original questions has been lost in the
threads evolution.
Has anybody sailed a Ruben's Nymph? Does the additional width
significantly reduce the tippiness reported from Nymph owners?
Thanks,
Pete
This is the kind of thing that arises when one trims messages.
The "skooted around very nicely" comment was in response to message
20697 which asked how I liked to motor EP, and is not a
characterisation of what it is like to win hydrofoil races with the
EP and a 12 volt motor... Or whatever it is I appear to have
claimed.;o)
The "skooted around very nicely" comment was in response to message
20697 which asked how I liked to motor EP, and is not a
characterisation of what it is like to win hydrofoil races with the
EP and a 12 volt motor... Or whatever it is I appear to have
claimed.;o)
> > Skooted aroundif you
> > very nicely, and for about 4hrs/charge.
>
> I don't doubt that you "skooted around very nicely". I doubt
> were "planing" by any commonly accepted definition of "planing".(If such
> exists) (Gerr suggests a S/L ration > 2.9) (If a Lightning has a16' LWL, 6
> kts. would give it a S/L of 1.5, i.e. not evenapproaching "planing")
>the St.
> I remember paddling my solo cedar strip canoe upstream on
> Croix against an inconvenient headwind and being overtaken by acouple in a
> "tin" canoe who overtook me like a horse would overtake an ox. Theyoung lady
> in the bow was wielding her paddle with great vigor, moving acouple of
> tablespoons of water, mostly into the air, with each stroke, withevident
> pleasure and enthusiasm. Her (male) companion's efforts at hispaddle were
> decidely perfunctory, although he appeared quite pleased withhimself. It was
> only after they had passed me by some distance that I was able toobserve
> that there was an electric trolling motor perched on a bracket tothe offside
> of that smug young man. The two of them were certainly "scootingalong" in
> comparison to me, but I doubt if any observer would have consideredthem to
> be "planing" the canoe.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I never said it planed the punt! Fair cop on
exageration, ludicrous inability to spot poetic
enthusiasm.
On the other hand my experience with the MK is that it
is a very much better rower than I, and I was trainned
by an Olympic gold medalist (rather a waste of his
time actualy) at Princeton (I never went there, but we
used their excelent facilities). Two marathon
paddlers can plane a USCA canoe over short distances,
but I don't think they could outpaddle my MK. I don't
know for sure, but if they could, it wouldn't be by a
huge margin. You can get a lot of oumph out of a 12
volt battery. Ever try to outscrew a drill driver?
It seems to me that none of us has that much
experience with minimal planing boats. Most motor
boats involve lifting huge weights out of the water.
Of course you can plane a punt. You fire anything
(that doesn't sink) at the water with enough speed,
and it is liable to come up on the top. Since the EP
in question was still acting in the displacement mode
issues about its controleabilty while planning hardly
arise.
<BR>
I too was a bit skeptical about a MinnKota planing a
Punt. Don't think the<BR>
punt can plane; don't think the MinnKota could do it
if the punt could<BR>
plane.<BR>
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
exageration, ludicrous inability to spot poetic
enthusiasm.
On the other hand my experience with the MK is that it
is a very much better rower than I, and I was trainned
by an Olympic gold medalist (rather a waste of his
time actualy) at Princeton (I never went there, but we
used their excelent facilities). Two marathon
paddlers can plane a USCA canoe over short distances,
but I don't think they could outpaddle my MK. I don't
know for sure, but if they could, it wouldn't be by a
huge margin. You can get a lot of oumph out of a 12
volt battery. Ever try to outscrew a drill driver?
It seems to me that none of us has that much
experience with minimal planing boats. Most motor
boats involve lifting huge weights out of the water.
Of course you can plane a punt. You fire anything
(that doesn't sink) at the water with enough speed,
and it is liable to come up on the top. Since the EP
in question was still acting in the displacement mode
issues about its controleabilty while planning hardly
arise.
<BR>
I too was a bit skeptical about a MinnKota planing a
Punt. Don't think the<BR>
punt can plane; don't think the MinnKota could do it
if the punt could<BR>
plane.<BR>
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
> The limitation on hull speed in the displacement modeThe standard definition of "hull speed" as given here was made up to
> is 1.4 x the square root of the waterline length.
apply to fairly heavy boats of normal length/beam dimensions. The
hull speed concept applies less strictly for very light boats and for
very slender boats (as sculls and multihulls).
A sailboat of the Herreshoff era with a Displacement/Length ratio of
about 400 would hit a wall at hull speed. A modern racing sailboat
hits a hill. A catamaran proabably hits a bump.
Peter
Notes: a) since people argue about most anything, they argue about
the exact value of the parameter given here as 1.4, b)
Displacement/Length ratio is not a simple division, but involves some
unit-changing conversion which I do not remember off the top of my
head. See Ted Brewer's web site.
Could someone explain the hullspeed ratios again? I
only dimly <BR>
remember how to do it and it is making my head
hurt...<BR>
<
The limitation on hull speed in the displacement mode
is 1.4 x the square root of the waterline length. So
a boat with a WLL of 36' would have a top speed of 8.4
knots.
This is useful in comparing similar hulls, but it's
utility with different types must be fairly marginal.
It is based on fundamental factors, but the constant
varies depending on hull type.
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
only dimly <BR>
remember how to do it and it is making my head
hurt...<BR>
<
The limitation on hull speed in the displacement mode
is 1.4 x the square root of the waterline length. So
a boat with a WLL of 36' would have a top speed of 8.4
knots.
This is useful in comparing similar hulls, but it's
utility with different types must be fairly marginal.
It is based on fundamental factors, but the constant
varies depending on hull type.
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
I don't know about the RN, but my Lightning is 19' at the waterline
and hard chined with only about 8" rocker(or deadrise). when sitting
she sits with bow and stern out. she will plane in winds over 10mph
knots and I have reached speeds of 15Mph on a broad reach in 25-30
MPH winds, checked with GPS! needless to say, a wild ride for a
monohull.
Could someone explain the hullspeed ratios again? I only dimly
remember how to do it and it is making my head hurt...
Scott Calman
Snip
and hard chined with only about 8" rocker(or deadrise). when sitting
she sits with bow and stern out. she will plane in winds over 10mph
knots and I have reached speeds of 15Mph on a broad reach in 25-30
MPH winds, checked with GPS! needless to say, a wild ride for a
monohull.
Could someone explain the hullspeed ratios again? I only dimly
remember how to do it and it is making my head hurt...
Scott Calman
Snip
--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/31/02 12:04:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
> proaconstrictor@y... writes:
>
>
> > Skooted around
> > very nicely, and for about 4hrs/charge.
>
> I don't doubt that you "skooted around very nicely". I doubt
if you
> were "planing" by any commonly accepted definition of "planing".
(If such
> exists) (Gerr suggests a S/L ration > 2.9) (If a Lightning has a
16' LWL, 6
> kts. would give it a S/L of 1.5, i.e. not even
approaching "planing")
>
Surely you mean square root of waterline length?
I'm not sure this is a good definition, as when I was in a rowing club
using a sliding seat single, I was once chased by an inflatable which
was definitely planing. I think light boats may plane at
somewhat slower speeds.
I should have been kinder to the power boats and stopped now and then,
as they couldn't get by me under way without making huge wakes. (THis
doesn't require much athleticism, btw.)
I'm not sure this is a good definition, as when I was in a rowing club
using a sliding seat single, I was once chased by an inflatable which
was definitely planing. I think light boats may plane at
somewhat slower speeds.
I should have been kinder to the power boats and stopped now and then,
as they couldn't get by me under way without making huge wakes. (THis
doesn't require much athleticism, btw.)
--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/31/02 12:04:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
> proaconstrictor@y... writes:
>
>
> > Skooted around
> > very nicely, and for about 4hrs/charge.
>
> I don't doubt that you "skooted around very nicely". I doubt
if you
> were "planing" by any commonly accepted definition of "planing". (If
such
> exists) (Gerr suggests a S/L ration > 2.9) (If a Lightning has a 16'
LWL, 6
> kts. would give it a S/L of 1.5, i.e. not even approaching
"planing")
>
Not quite sure why I like the Seagull. Maybe it is just that I like British
machinery- owned a gaggle of MGs and a Morris Minor.
[Nickerson, Bruce ] -----Original Message-----
From:wmrpage@...[mailto:wmrpage@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:46 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
In a message dated 5/30/02 7:49:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
lincolnr@...writes:
stand on its transom (if light) or swamp itself with its own stern wave (if
heavy).
I haven't seen a Seagull in decades, but the few I did encounter in my youth
had 5 (?) bladed, shallow-pitched props. I doubt that one could push any
kind
of boat on a plane. Then again, I strongly doubt that any MinnKota electric
motor could put itself, its battery and an operator on plane under any
circumstances. Perhaps I'm unduly skeptical.
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
machinery- owned a gaggle of MGs and a Morris Minor.
[Nickerson, Bruce ] -----Original Message-----
From:wmrpage@...[mailto:wmrpage@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:46 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
In a message dated 5/30/02 7:49:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
lincolnr@...writes:
> As I understand it, rocker prevents planing, and if you put enoughActually, I think that pretty predictable things happen - the boat wants to
> power on, strange things happen.
stand on its transom (if light) or swamp itself with its own stern wave (if
heavy).
I haven't seen a Seagull in decades, but the few I did encounter in my youth
had 5 (?) bladed, shallow-pitched props. I doubt that one could push any
kind
of boat on a plane. Then again, I strongly doubt that any MinnKota electric
motor could put itself, its battery and an operator on plane under any
circumstances. Perhaps I'm unduly skeptical.
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yep, my seagull has a five bladed prop. My impression is that it won't move
anything floatable very fast, but that it will move anything floatable.
I too was a bit skeptical about a MinnKota planing a Punt. Don't think the
punt can plane; don't think the MinnKota could do it if the punt could
plane.
-----Original Message-----
From:wmrpage@...[mailto:wmrpage@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:46 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
In a message dated 5/30/02 7:49:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
lincolnr@...writes:
stand on its transom (if light) or swamp itself with its own stern wave (if
heavy).
I haven't seen a Seagull in decades, but the few I did encounter in my youth
had 5 (?) bladed, shallow-pitched props. I doubt that one could push any
kind
of boat on a plane. Then again, I strongly doubt that any MinnKota electric
motor could put itself, its battery and an operator on plane under any
circumstances. Perhaps I'm unduly skeptical.
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
anything floatable very fast, but that it will move anything floatable.
I too was a bit skeptical about a MinnKota planing a Punt. Don't think the
punt can plane; don't think the MinnKota could do it if the punt could
plane.
-----Original Message-----
From:wmrpage@...[mailto:wmrpage@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:46 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
In a message dated 5/30/02 7:49:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
lincolnr@...writes:
> As I understand it, rocker prevents planing, and if you put enoughActually, I think that pretty predictable things happen - the boat wants to
> power on, strange things happen.
stand on its transom (if light) or swamp itself with its own stern wave (if
heavy).
I haven't seen a Seagull in decades, but the few I did encounter in my youth
had 5 (?) bladed, shallow-pitched props. I doubt that one could push any
kind
of boat on a plane. Then again, I strongly doubt that any MinnKota electric
motor could put itself, its battery and an operator on plane under any
circumstances. Perhaps I'm unduly skeptical.
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In a message dated 5/31/02 12:04:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
proaconstrictor@...writes:
were "planing" by any commonly accepted definition of "planing". (If such
exists) (Gerr suggests a S/L ration > 2.9) (If a Lightning has a 16' LWL, 6
kts. would give it a S/L of 1.5, i.e. not even approaching "planing")
I remember paddling my solo cedar strip canoe upstream on the St.
Croix against an inconvenient headwind and being overtaken by a couple in a
"tin" canoe who overtook me like a horse would overtake an ox. The young lady
in the bow was wielding her paddle with great vigor, moving a couple of
tablespoons of water, mostly into the air, with each stroke, with evident
pleasure and enthusiasm. Her (male) companion's efforts at his paddle were
decidely perfunctory, although he appeared quite pleased with himself. It was
only after they had passed me by some distance that I was able to observe
that there was an electric trolling motor perched on a bracket to the offside
of that smug young man. The two of them were certainly "scooting along" in
comparison to me, but I doubt if any observer would have considered them to
be "planing" the canoe.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
proaconstrictor@...writes:
> Skooted aroundI don't doubt that you "skooted around very nicely". I doubt if you
> very nicely, and for about 4hrs/charge.
were "planing" by any commonly accepted definition of "planing". (If such
exists) (Gerr suggests a S/L ration > 2.9) (If a Lightning has a 16' LWL, 6
kts. would give it a S/L of 1.5, i.e. not even approaching "planing")
I remember paddling my solo cedar strip canoe upstream on the St.
Croix against an inconvenient headwind and being overtaken by a couple in a
"tin" canoe who overtook me like a horse would overtake an ox. The young lady
in the bow was wielding her paddle with great vigor, moving a couple of
tablespoons of water, mostly into the air, with each stroke, with evident
pleasure and enthusiasm. Her (male) companion's efforts at his paddle were
decidely perfunctory, although he appeared quite pleased with himself. It was
only after they had passed me by some distance that I was able to observe
that there was an electric trolling motor perched on a bracket to the offside
of that smug young man. The two of them were certainly "scooting along" in
comparison to me, but I doubt if any observer would have considered them to
be "planing" the canoe.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
At the time I sold it for $700 Canadian, that might
have been about 550 US at the time, about 15 years
ago. I had someone try to buy my EP right out from
underneath me once, but I didn't budge, since in
general I think it is hard to ask a fair price for a
boat like this. It might be possible to make
something on them if one made multiples, where the
"tooling" cost was minimal. It might be possible to
sell kits.
The only epoxy related thing I ever made money on,
were golf clubs. You just glue the parts together,
and sell them at a multiple of their cost. If you
know what you are doing you can add a ton of value,
with very little effort. People who pay $20-200 for a
4 hour walk in the park are a far better market than
most anything relating to boats.
How much do you sell a Nymph or an Elegant Punt
for?<BR>
<BR>
I was wanting to try that very thing at a large flea
market near <BR>
where I live?<BR>
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
have been about 550 US at the time, about 15 years
ago. I had someone try to buy my EP right out from
underneath me once, but I didn't budge, since in
general I think it is hard to ask a fair price for a
boat like this. It might be possible to make
something on them if one made multiples, where the
"tooling" cost was minimal. It might be possible to
sell kits.
The only epoxy related thing I ever made money on,
were golf clubs. You just glue the parts together,
and sell them at a multiple of their cost. If you
know what you are doing you can add a ton of value,
with very little effort. People who pay $20-200 for a
4 hour walk in the park are a far better market than
most anything relating to boats.
How much do you sell a Nymph or an Elegant Punt
for?<BR>
<BR>
I was wanting to try that very thing at a large flea
market near <BR>
where I live?<BR>
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
We used it on quite a few trips. The two of us weight
about 300 + boat, + tackle, + battery. Skooted around
very nicely, and for about 4hrs/charge. The only
problem we had was weed fouling the prop, since the
ads, possibly for much more powerful electrics, make
great noise about their chopping through the growth.
I don't doubt they do, since in the average fishing
case they would be useless if they fouled with every
weed encounter.
The MK is pretty variable for depth, there is a clamp
that allows a wide range of height/shaft adjustment.
The motor was only about $100 new. It wouldn't have
suited me much for cruising, since I don't have any
way of keeping the battery charged
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
about 300 + boat, + tackle, + battery. Skooted around
very nicely, and for about 4hrs/charge. The only
problem we had was weed fouling the prop, since the
ads, possibly for much more powerful electrics, make
great noise about their chopping through the growth.
I don't doubt they do, since in the average fishing
case they would be useless if they fouled with every
weed encounter.
The MK is pretty variable for depth, there is a clamp
that allows a wide range of height/shaft adjustment.
The motor was only about $100 new. It wouldn't have
suited me much for cruising, since I don't have any
way of keeping the battery charged
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
I have a Seagull Fast forty(3.5HP) and it pushes my Lightning at 6
Knots. This is definatley planing speed for a Lightning. Of course it
is much faster with some wind:^) I used the same motor to move a 36'
Herreshoff Ketch at about the same speed...
Scott Calman
Knots. This is definatley planing speed for a Lightning. Of course it
is much faster with some wind:^) I used the same motor to move a 36'
Herreshoff Ketch at about the same speed...
Scott Calman
> I haven't seen a Seagull in decades, but the few I did encounter inmy youth
> had 5 (?) bladed, shallow-pitched props. I doubt that one couldpush any kind
> of boat on a plane. Then again, I strongly doubt that any MinnKotaelectric
> motor could put itself, its battery and an operator on plane underany
> circumstances. Perhaps I'm unduly skeptical.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
My dad used to use a 3.5hp motor on a square (but
fairly narrow) stern <BR>
canoe. Got very nose high but I'm not sure it was
really planing. It <BR>
wasn't very fast, but seemed so. Of course that's not
exactly rocker.<BR>
That is probably a good description of what was
happening. I don't think that little motor could
really lift us out of the water, but I wouldn't want
to pace it with oars either. Of course if it isn't
really planning or likely too, then you don't have to
worry about any adverse effects the hull shape may
cause. Displacement is as displacement does.
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
fairly narrow) stern <BR>
canoe. Got very nose high but I'm not sure it was
really planing. It <BR>
wasn't very fast, but seemed so. Of course that's not
exactly rocker.<BR>
That is probably a good description of what was
happening. I don't think that little motor could
really lift us out of the water, but I wouldn't want
to pace it with oars either. Of course if it isn't
really planning or likely too, then you don't have to
worry about any adverse effects the hull shape may
cause. Displacement is as displacement does.
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
In a message dated 5/30/02 7:49:11 PM Central Daylight Time,
lincolnr@...writes:
stand on its transom (if light) or swamp itself with its own stern wave (if
heavy).
I haven't seen a Seagull in decades, but the few I did encounter in my youth
had 5 (?) bladed, shallow-pitched props. I doubt that one could push any kind
of boat on a plane. Then again, I strongly doubt that any MinnKota electric
motor could put itself, its battery and an operator on plane under any
circumstances. Perhaps I'm unduly skeptical.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lincolnr@...writes:
> As I understand it, rocker prevents planing, and if you put enoughActually, I think that pretty predictable things happen - the boat wants to
> power on, strange things happen.
stand on its transom (if light) or swamp itself with its own stern wave (if
heavy).
I haven't seen a Seagull in decades, but the few I did encounter in my youth
had 5 (?) bladed, shallow-pitched props. I doubt that one could push any kind
of boat on a plane. Then again, I strongly doubt that any MinnKota electric
motor could put itself, its battery and an operator on plane under any
circumstances. Perhaps I'm unduly skeptical.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
As I understand it, rocker prevents planing, and if you put enough
power on, strange things happen. An old boating book I read said
that if you put enough horsepower on a light pram, it would go nose
up and kind of jump. Hull speed on an 8 foot boat is going to be
pretty low, but there should be no problem up to hull speed.
I wonder if the Seagull's prop pitch and rpm are low enough that no
boat will go fast with one? I seem to recall it was sold as an
auxiliary for sailboats, which would emphasize thrust over speed.
My dad used to use a 3.5hp motor on a square (but fairly narrow) stern
canoe. Got very nose high but I'm not sure it was really planing. It
wasn't very fast, but seemed so. Of course that's not exactly rocker.
power on, strange things happen. An old boating book I read said
that if you put enough horsepower on a light pram, it would go nose
up and kind of jump. Hull speed on an 8 foot boat is going to be
pretty low, but there should be no problem up to hull speed.
I wonder if the Seagull's prop pitch and rpm are low enough that no
boat will go fast with one? I seem to recall it was sold as an
auxiliary for sailboats, which would emphasize thrust over speed.
My dad used to use a 3.5hp motor on a square (but fairly narrow) stern
canoe. Got very nose high but I'm not sure it was really planing. It
wasn't very fast, but seemed so. Of course that's not exactly rocker.
--- In bolger@y..., "Nickerson, Bruce " <nickerb@p...> wrote:
snip Does the aft rocker on
these two
> boats interfere much with outboard use?
>
removed]
Speak to me about motoring your Punt.
I have a British Seagull pushing my Punt. While the Seagull is not a high
speed motor, it seems to move the Punt quite slowly. Perhaps it has
something to do with the depth of the prop below water level? Might a
bolt-on bracket which elevates the motor higher help?
Sounds like your MinKota was pushing quite a load with a fully loaded Punt.
Did you trim it level?
Some of my earlier queries about using the Seagull on the Elegant Punt and
June Bug generated some negative comments. Does the aft rocker on these two
boats interfere much with outboard use?
-----Original Message-----
From: thomas dalzell [mailto:proaconstrictor@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:46 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
I could almost bring her to plane with two people and
the smallest minkota, but it is too much loading for
the transom. If I wanted to save the weight and cost,
I would use doorskins and core fore the "transoms".
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca<http://personals.yahoo.ca>
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 have a British Seagull pushing my Punt. While the Seagull is not a high
speed motor, it seems to move the Punt quite slowly. Perhaps it has
something to do with the depth of the prop below water level? Might a
bolt-on bracket which elevates the motor higher help?
Sounds like your MinKota was pushing quite a load with a fully loaded Punt.
Did you trim it level?
Some of my earlier queries about using the Seagull on the Elegant Punt and
June Bug generated some negative comments. Does the aft rocker on these two
boats interfere much with outboard use?
-----Original Message-----
From: thomas dalzell [mailto:proaconstrictor@...]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 12:46 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: mast options for Ruben's Nymph
I could almost bring her to plane with two people and
the smallest minkota, but it is too much loading for
the transom. If I wanted to save the weight and cost,
I would use doorskins and core fore the "transoms".
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca<http://personals.yahoo.ca>
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]
How much do you sell a Nymph or an Elegant Punt for?
I was wanting to try that very thing at a large flea market near
where I live?
I was wanting to try that very thing at a large flea market near
where I live?
--- In bolger@y..., thomas dalzell <proaconstrictor@y...> wrote:
> I have built both Elegant Punt and Nymph, but sailed
> neither.
I have built both Elegant Punt and Nymph, but sailed
neither. I agree that Nymph is tippy, even without a
sail, mostly a problem when getting in and out. I
built Nymph for a client, and he likes her, but
everyone who has ever tried here, a significant list
of non-expert boaters, has been struck by how tippy
she was. It is now part of his local legend. This
tipymess is agravated by the center bench seat,
because she is hard to step into the middle of. I
none-the-less think the center bench seat is an
excelent idea, weight shift is effortless, and it
provides a better berth than my 24' trimaran. When I
was at the wooden boat school one of the other
students who had brought two Nymphs, and in a sort of
belt and braces way, installed both transverse seats,
and the longi bench. There was hardly anywhere to put
your feet. I did get to try his Nymph again a bunch of
other tenders there present, and was struck by how
well she rowed compared to some fancier boats, like
the nutshell pram.
Elegant punt rows very nicely, is flat across the
bottom, has fewer joints and pieces, and would
probably stand up to a sail better. She has been my
tender for about 8 years, and I would build here again
in that size range.
I haven't tried a Reubens, but the nymph hull shape is
inferently rockered, and unless you required the
larger boat, I would change the shape not the size.
Presumably with the same load, the larger boat would
float flatter, and be more stable, but a flat bottomed
hull would seem more logical. Remember that Bolger
has acidly remarked about how peope inevitably demand
a rig regardless of the boat's read design. The
presence of a rig does not mean the boat is really
best equiped for one.
As a canoe designer for about 23 years, I was not
prepared for how well a flat bottomed boat like
Elegant Punt would row. I built her from the plans in
Instant Boats by Payson. I did not use the external
chine logs, prefering composite joinery. I used epoxy
throughout, and glassed everything but the inside of
the sides. I also prefer solid panels in the bow and
stern, but didn't use them (as I had on Nymph),
experimenting with the framed design. Big mistake, I
could almost bring her to plane with two people and
the smallest minkota, but it is too much loading for
the transom. If I wanted to save the weight and cost,
I would use doorskins and core fore the "transoms".
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
neither. I agree that Nymph is tippy, even without a
sail, mostly a problem when getting in and out. I
built Nymph for a client, and he likes her, but
everyone who has ever tried here, a significant list
of non-expert boaters, has been struck by how tippy
she was. It is now part of his local legend. This
tipymess is agravated by the center bench seat,
because she is hard to step into the middle of. I
none-the-less think the center bench seat is an
excelent idea, weight shift is effortless, and it
provides a better berth than my 24' trimaran. When I
was at the wooden boat school one of the other
students who had brought two Nymphs, and in a sort of
belt and braces way, installed both transverse seats,
and the longi bench. There was hardly anywhere to put
your feet. I did get to try his Nymph again a bunch of
other tenders there present, and was struck by how
well she rowed compared to some fancier boats, like
the nutshell pram.
Elegant punt rows very nicely, is flat across the
bottom, has fewer joints and pieces, and would
probably stand up to a sail better. She has been my
tender for about 8 years, and I would build here again
in that size range.
I haven't tried a Reubens, but the nymph hull shape is
inferently rockered, and unless you required the
larger boat, I would change the shape not the size.
Presumably with the same load, the larger boat would
float flatter, and be more stable, but a flat bottomed
hull would seem more logical. Remember that Bolger
has acidly remarked about how peope inevitably demand
a rig regardless of the boat's read design. The
presence of a rig does not mean the boat is really
best equiped for one.
As a canoe designer for about 23 years, I was not
prepared for how well a flat bottomed boat like
Elegant Punt would row. I built her from the plans in
Instant Boats by Payson. I did not use the external
chine logs, prefering composite joinery. I used epoxy
throughout, and glassed everything but the inside of
the sides. I also prefer solid panels in the bow and
stern, but didn't use them (as I had on Nymph),
experimenting with the framed design. Big mistake, I
could almost bring her to plane with two people and
the smallest minkota, but it is too much loading for
the transom. If I wanted to save the weight and cost,
I would use doorskins and core fore the "transoms".
______________________________________________________________________
Find, Connect, Date!http://personals.yahoo.ca
I had been put off on building a Nymph because they had been
described as too tippy for sailing.
Does the Rueben's Nymph's extra width sove this problem?
Please describe your sailing experience.
Thanks
described as too tippy for sailing.
Does the Rueben's Nymph's extra width sove this problem?
Please describe your sailing experience.
Thanks
--- In bolger@y..., "bradktn" <bradktn@e...> wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience with mast couplers? I've seen them
in
> other plans, and would like the option of splitting the RN's mast in
> to two eight-foot sections. If they would not store in the boat at
> least it would be easier to transport them in the back of my truck.
>
> Another option would be to replace the leg o' mutton rig with a
sprit.
> Any thoughts?
I have rigged an Achilles raft with a dipping lug rig and wanted to
be able to fit the mast inside. I ended up using Aluminum concrete
float handles that come in 5' sections and slip together with a
button detent. I didn't trust the detent so I drilled a hole through
them and put a bolt and wingnut through it. This works really well
and has the added bonus of being a nice anodized blue.
Scott Calman
be able to fit the mast inside. I ended up using Aluminum concrete
float handles that come in 5' sections and slip together with a
button detent. I didn't trust the detent so I drilled a hole through
them and put a bolt and wingnut through it. This works really well
and has the added bonus of being a nice anodized blue.
Scott Calman
--- In bolger@y..., "bradktn" <bradktn@e...> wrote:
> Does anyone have any experience with mast couplers? I've seen them
in
> other plans, and would like the option of splitting the RN's mast in
> to two eight-foot sections. If they would not store in the boat at
> least it would be easier to transport them in the back of my truck.
>
> Another option would be to replace the leg o' mutton rig with a
sprit.
> Any thoughts?
Our Nymph sail is now a Solent lug - same sail, same sprit boom. Mast and
yard about 10 feet, IIRC. Longer than a jointed mast but still handy. If you
are overenthusiastic enough to put the boat over, the lug rig allows the
hull to be righted without the sail vaning, to be hoisted after the boat is
bailed and you're back aboard. Reefing potential too, although I haven't
tried that.
Cheers
Derek
yard about 10 feet, IIRC. Longer than a jointed mast but still handy. If you
are overenthusiastic enough to put the boat over, the lug rig allows the
hull to be righted without the sail vaning, to be hoisted after the boat is
bailed and you're back aboard. Reefing potential too, although I haven't
tried that.
Cheers
Derek
I've used a 2-section mast on my folding kayak for years - made it myself of
a couple 4-5' lengths of 1 1/4" closet pole joined with a stainless kayak
paddle ferrule designed so you can break your paddle in half for easy
transport, or twist it for 'feathering' when the wind is against you. These
ferrules are available from many sources, the one I have is from Sawyer
paddles. But my mast is stayed - one on each side, canted slightly aft, also
a forestay to support the jib. Granted, the 'standing rigging' is pretty
flimsy, first rendition was of parachute cord, now upgraded to dacron, but I
still do not think it would've held up all this time if those stays were not
in place. My rig is a Gunter Lug rig, which adds another 3' or so to the top
of my mast, but the whole thing breaks down into a golf-bag length for easy
transport. The vertical spar pole and boom also split in half.
What about a sectioned fiberglass windsurfer mast? I know they make 'em,
question is, how much would one cost?
Paul L
a couple 4-5' lengths of 1 1/4" closet pole joined with a stainless kayak
paddle ferrule designed so you can break your paddle in half for easy
transport, or twist it for 'feathering' when the wind is against you. These
ferrules are available from many sources, the one I have is from Sawyer
paddles. But my mast is stayed - one on each side, canted slightly aft, also
a forestay to support the jib. Granted, the 'standing rigging' is pretty
flimsy, first rendition was of parachute cord, now upgraded to dacron, but I
still do not think it would've held up all this time if those stays were not
in place. My rig is a Gunter Lug rig, which adds another 3' or so to the top
of my mast, but the whole thing breaks down into a golf-bag length for easy
transport. The vertical spar pole and boom also split in half.
What about a sectioned fiberglass windsurfer mast? I know they make 'em,
question is, how much would one cost?
Paul L
> Does anyone have any experience with mast couplers?
Does anyone have any experience with mast couplers? I've seen them in
other plans, and would like the option of splitting the RN's mast in
to two eight-foot sections. If they would not store in the boat at
least it would be easier to transport them in the back of my truck.
Another option would be to replace the leg o' mutton rig with a sprit.
Any thoughts?
other plans, and would like the option of splitting the RN's mast in
to two eight-foot sections. If they would not store in the boat at
least it would be easier to transport them in the back of my truck.
Another option would be to replace the leg o' mutton rig with a sprit.
Any thoughts?