Re: 16' Sneakeasy?
Based on some new photos on the Bolger list, you might look at a
modified deck for the Microtrawler hull.
Peter
modified deck for the Microtrawler hull.
Peter
Photos you can click on are in the messages of the Bolger2 eGroup.
Looks cool.
Looks cool.
Have you seen the plans for the Selway-Fisher 16 Slipper launch,
quite Sneakeasy like and very slippery. See it at www.selway-
fisher.com in the Historic or conventional section, also some nice
stuff throughout this Brittish firms site.
quite Sneakeasy like and very slippery. See it at www.selway-
fisher.com in the Historic or conventional section, also some nice
stuff throughout this Brittish firms site.
Well I think I've narrowed it down to two possibilities. 26' would
look nice, but I'm still favoring a 16' length.
So the Lake Launch looks pretty good. Where can I find a good print
of the plans? Is it in one of Bolger's books? The image in the files
section is just to blurry, but it looks like 6 sheets of plywood is
needed for the bare hull.
The other possibility is the Daydream skiff with a deck. Not a Bolger
design, but it follows the same philosophy.
http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/LCB.htm
Regards, Pierre.
look nice, but I'm still favoring a 16' length.
So the Lake Launch looks pretty good. Where can I find a good print
of the plans? Is it in one of Bolger's books? The image in the files
section is just to blurry, but it looks like 6 sheets of plywood is
needed for the bare hull.
The other possibility is the Daydream skiff with a deck. Not a Bolger
design, but it follows the same philosophy.
http://members.tripod.com/simplicityboats/LCB.htm
Regards, Pierre.
The Sneakeasy isn't really a 26 footer, she just happens to be that
long. Think of her as a normal 14' skiff in front of a carnival fun
mirror. If you lengthen the tongue on your trailer I bet it could handle
the weight no problem.
You have to ride in one to really appreciate how impressive the
Sneakeasy is. My wife is a total convert after one ride. Whenever Fritz
drives by heading to the water on a nice day, I have to restrain her
from running after the trailer shouting "take me with you". Not to say
that Fritz isn't a good looking guy, but it ain't him she's running
after.
HJ
pfaudette wrote:
long. Think of her as a normal 14' skiff in front of a carnival fun
mirror. If you lengthen the tongue on your trailer I bet it could handle
the weight no problem.
You have to ride in one to really appreciate how impressive the
Sneakeasy is. My wife is a total convert after one ride. Whenever Fritz
drives by heading to the water on a nice day, I have to restrain her
from running after the trailer shouting "take me with you". Not to say
that Fritz isn't a good looking guy, but it ain't him she's running
after.
HJ
pfaudette wrote:
>
> I appreciate the comments guys. Here's my motivation for this boat.
> I'm selling ny 20' glass sailboat, since I can't justify the cost of
> club membership and mooring fees when I go out ~4 times a year. So
> I'm looking for something easily trailerable I can keep at home. My
> wife 'claims' she would spend more time on the water if we had a
> pontoon, but I just can't bear the thought of boating on beer kegs. I
> find the lines of Sneakeasy quite stylish, and like to boat quietly
> which is why I was thinking of electric power, and therefore going
> shorter for weight reasons. The 16' x 4' size was mainly based on
> using two plywood sheets for the bottom. I also have a trailer that
> is not suitable for a 26 footer. So now I'm debating if I should
> think of getting a 4-stroke O/B and keep it flat, or put some rocker
> in and keep it short for electric use.
>
> Thanks, Pierre.
>
Since I built and operate a Sneakeasy I thought a couple comments
might help!The before mentioned ratio 1:6 is standard on Bolgers
sharpies. It is there for a reason , efficiency. I get 18mph on my
Mercury 15 hp with only me in the boat. Reducing the length to 16
feet I think would eliminate a lot of the inherent stability and
would make the stern settle lower because of the reduced bouyancy.
Both the "Clam Skiff" and the "Lake Cruiser"(both in the files
section under "power sharpies") while shorter are also wider to make
up for the bouyancy.
I would recommend building a clamm skiff or Lake cruiser rather than
shorten the Sneakeasy.
As to the trailer, I bought a 860 lb capacity trailer from Harbor
Freight and put an extention on it made from 2" galvanized pipe from
Home Depot. After bracing properly I have been real pleased. The
only picture is on my web site
http://www.geocities.com/sneakeasy2000/index.htmland may be in the
two Ducksworks magazine articles.
Steve Bosquette
might help!The before mentioned ratio 1:6 is standard on Bolgers
sharpies. It is there for a reason , efficiency. I get 18mph on my
Mercury 15 hp with only me in the boat. Reducing the length to 16
feet I think would eliminate a lot of the inherent stability and
would make the stern settle lower because of the reduced bouyancy.
Both the "Clam Skiff" and the "Lake Cruiser"(both in the files
section under "power sharpies") while shorter are also wider to make
up for the bouyancy.
I would recommend building a clamm skiff or Lake cruiser rather than
shorten the Sneakeasy.
As to the trailer, I bought a 860 lb capacity trailer from Harbor
Freight and put an extention on it made from 2" galvanized pipe from
Home Depot. After bracing properly I have been real pleased. The
only picture is on my web site
http://www.geocities.com/sneakeasy2000/index.htmland may be in the
two Ducksworks magazine articles.
Steve Bosquette
--- In bolger@y..., "lowpine" <lowpineuno@a...> wrote:
> Are there any pics of the trailer on the web, I would like to have
I'm not sure. I seem to recall seeing one, but I might be wrong.
--- In bolger@y..., "lowpine" <lowpineuno@a...> wrote:
> Are there any pics of the trailer on the web, I would like to have a
> peek.
>
> thanks,
> stevenj
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
> Steve Bosquette's
> > Sneakeasy is kept on a homemade trailer!
Are there any pics of the trailer on the web, I would like to have a
peek.
thanks,
stevenj
peek.
thanks,
stevenj
--- In bolger@y..., "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
Steve Bosquette's
> Sneakeasy is kept on a homemade trailer!
The Lake Launch is in the same folder, "Power Sharpies", in the files
section of this group that you posted your 16' Sneakette to.
section of this group that you posted your 16' Sneakette to.
If your budget extends to a 4 stroke, you may be ok with just that.
I've been at close quarters with a Honda 4 stroke at partial throttle
recently for maybe an hour at a time. Reasonably quiet, far more so
than a 2 stroke. In the old days, they used to put a half enclosure
in front of the outboard to control noise, tho I haven't seen this in
person. Wonder if that's an option with a short shaft motor without
ruining the looks?
However, you will probably lose the low wake medium speed cruise (6? 8
knots?) that is so nice with the Sneakeasy.
Can you modify the trailer? It's NOT a heavy boat. Steve Bosquette's
Sneakeasy is kept on a homemade trailer!
If you're not ambitious about range or speed, a big enough electric
should work ok with the planing hull, just not as well.
I've been at close quarters with a Honda 4 stroke at partial throttle
recently for maybe an hour at a time. Reasonably quiet, far more so
than a 2 stroke. In the old days, they used to put a half enclosure
in front of the outboard to control noise, tho I haven't seen this in
person. Wonder if that's an option with a short shaft motor without
ruining the looks?
However, you will probably lose the low wake medium speed cruise (6? 8
knots?) that is so nice with the Sneakeasy.
Can you modify the trailer? It's NOT a heavy boat. Steve Bosquette's
Sneakeasy is kept on a homemade trailer!
If you're not ambitious about range or speed, a big enough electric
should work ok with the planing hull, just not as well.
--- In bolger@y..., "pfaudette" <pfaudet@v...> wrote:
> I appreciate the comments guys. Here's my motivation for this boat.
> I'm selling ny 20' glass sailboat, since I can't justify the cost of
> club membership and mooring fees when I go out ~4 times a year. So
> I'm looking for something easily trailerable I can keep at home. My
> wife 'claims' she would spend more time on the water if we had a
> pontoon, but I just can't bear the thought of boating on beer kegs.
I
> find the lines of Sneakeasy quite stylish, and like to boat quietly
> which is why I was thinking of electric power, and therefore going
> shorter for weight reasons. The 16' x 4' size was mainly based on
> using two plywood sheets for the bottom. I also have a trailer that
> is not suitable for a 26 footer. So now I'm debating if I should
> think of getting a 4-stroke O/B and keep it flat, or put some rocker
> in and keep it short for electric use.
>
> Thanks, Pierre.
Bolger's Lake Launch looks very much like a mini Sneakeasy,
sans deck. It is not displacement type. But he mentiones that
the 6 HP motor he put in the plans might be too much for such a
hull (15'6" x 4'1" and light)! Tight turns at speed could lead to
trouble.
Someone in this group posted a .gif of the MAIB page discussing
this skiff. Sorry, I've forgotton who and where.
Vance
sans deck. It is not displacement type. But he mentiones that
the 6 HP motor he put in the plans might be too much for such a
hull (15'6" x 4'1" and light)! Tight turns at speed could lead to
trouble.
Someone in this group posted a .gif of the MAIB page discussing
this skiff. Sorry, I've forgotton who and where.
Vance
> I wonder if there isn't already a displacement Bolger design ofthe appropriate style and size?
>power is enough. Would probably be worth a little investigating.
> BTW, as I recall no one has been adressing whether your
I'm not familiar with that boat. Are there any online references?
--- In bolger@y..., "brucehector" <bruce_hector@h...> wrote:
> Instead of re-inventing the wheel. I'd suggest building a Lake
> Cruiser and add a bit of turtle deck in the bows with a classy wood
> framed windshield to the base hull. Should look quite silky.
>
> Bruce Hector
Pierre,
Couldn't you have it both ways? Build it flat for speed when you want
it, and use the trolling motor for silent cruising in protected
waters. Plus you'd have some redundancy if one system failed, you
might not have to row home.
Instead of re-inventing the wheel. I'd suggest building a Lake
Cruiser and add a bit of turtle deck in the bows with a classy wood
framed windshield to the base hull. Should look quite silky.
Bruce Hector
Couldn't you have it both ways? Build it flat for speed when you want
it, and use the trolling motor for silent cruising in protected
waters. Plus you'd have some redundancy if one system failed, you
might not have to row home.
Instead of re-inventing the wheel. I'd suggest building a Lake
Cruiser and add a bit of turtle deck in the bows with a classy wood
framed windshield to the base hull. Should look quite silky.
Bruce Hector
I appreciate the comments guys. Here's my motivation for this boat.
I'm selling ny 20' glass sailboat, since I can't justify the cost of
club membership and mooring fees when I go out ~4 times a year. So
I'm looking for something easily trailerable I can keep at home. My
wife 'claims' she would spend more time on the water if we had a
pontoon, but I just can't bear the thought of boating on beer kegs. I
find the lines of Sneakeasy quite stylish, and like to boat quietly
which is why I was thinking of electric power, and therefore going
shorter for weight reasons. The 16' x 4' size was mainly based on
using two plywood sheets for the bottom. I also have a trailer that
is not suitable for a 26 footer. So now I'm debating if I should
think of getting a 4-stroke O/B and keep it flat, or put some rocker
in and keep it short for electric use.
Thanks, Pierre.
I'm selling ny 20' glass sailboat, since I can't justify the cost of
club membership and mooring fees when I go out ~4 times a year. So
I'm looking for something easily trailerable I can keep at home. My
wife 'claims' she would spend more time on the water if we had a
pontoon, but I just can't bear the thought of boating on beer kegs. I
find the lines of Sneakeasy quite stylish, and like to boat quietly
which is why I was thinking of electric power, and therefore going
shorter for weight reasons. The 16' x 4' size was mainly based on
using two plywood sheets for the bottom. I also have a trailer that
is not suitable for a 26 footer. So now I'm debating if I should
think of getting a 4-stroke O/B and keep it flat, or put some rocker
in and keep it short for electric use.
Thanks, Pierre.
Pierre, the only thing that matters is what makes you happy. In
this months copy of wooden boat there is a small write up about a
shortened Sneakeasy that was also widened. This boat the " Quarter
Moon" is 22'L X 5'W and carries a 50 HP motor. PCB designed Sneakeasy
to be an extremely efficient, low-powered, low wake cruiser but which
also retains essential elements of the period elegance of early 20th
century speedboats. The efficiency comes directly from the long
waterline. I can't remember where but I saw one that had been
converted to electric power in an article, no matter.
The foundation of the excellent power sharpies is Bolger's
philosophy of a 1:6 Beam/Length Ratio. That is the essence of the
ability to have such good economy and speed. Even if your boat design
cuts the weight in half your boat will sit lower in the water, create
more wake and deplete your electric system 20% faster than a standard
waterline Sneakeasy.
I am not trying to change your mind and build a longer version. I
just want you to be aware of some of the disadvantages you are
facing. I would build the step chinned version since your limiting
the flotation of the hull forward. This will make the bow lift
through a wave. A very important feature in a 16' boat.
http://www.carlsondesign.com/sneakesy.html
John
this months copy of wooden boat there is a small write up about a
shortened Sneakeasy that was also widened. This boat the " Quarter
Moon" is 22'L X 5'W and carries a 50 HP motor. PCB designed Sneakeasy
to be an extremely efficient, low-powered, low wake cruiser but which
also retains essential elements of the period elegance of early 20th
century speedboats. The efficiency comes directly from the long
waterline. I can't remember where but I saw one that had been
converted to electric power in an article, no matter.
The foundation of the excellent power sharpies is Bolger's
philosophy of a 1:6 Beam/Length Ratio. That is the essence of the
ability to have such good economy and speed. Even if your boat design
cuts the weight in half your boat will sit lower in the water, create
more wake and deplete your electric system 20% faster than a standard
waterline Sneakeasy.
I am not trying to change your mind and build a longer version. I
just want you to be aware of some of the disadvantages you are
facing. I would build the step chinned version since your limiting
the flotation of the hull forward. This will make the bow lift
through a wave. A very important feature in a 16' boat.
http://www.carlsondesign.com/sneakesy.html
John
--- In bolger@y..., "pfaudette" <pfaudet@v...> wrote:
> I've uploaded the 'shrunken' Sneakeasy study plan at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
> 20Sharpies/sneakeasy16.jpg
>
> It does look very similar to the Lake Launch:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
> 20Sharpies/LakeLaunch.gif
>
> Could you please explain why a boat with more rocker is better than
a
> flat bottom one for displacement speed?
>
> Regards, Pierre.
Lily is a nice looking boat, but it doesn't look anything like
Sneakeasy.
Sneakeasy.
--- In bolger@y..., "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
> > I wonder if there isn't already a displacement Bolger design of
the
> > appropriate style and size?
>
> Lily, the electric launch. Very stylish. All the electrical power
> issues have been worked out in great detail. Video available, I
> believe.
Wouldn't that depend on the trolling motor? If he can get up to 3
knots I bet it would make a really big difference. If it's only 1 or 2
knots you may have a point. I know that it's MUCH easier to row a
properly shaped boat than a planing skiff, and I don't think rowing is
that much higher output than a trolling motor, and maybe lower than
some, particularly when this experience comes from when I was a kid. A
properly rockered hull will probably have less wetted area, so it's
going to make some difference no matter how slow.
knots I bet it would make a really big difference. If it's only 1 or 2
knots you may have a point. I know that it's MUCH easier to row a
properly shaped boat than a planing skiff, and I don't think rowing is
that much higher output than a trolling motor, and maybe lower than
some, particularly when this experience comes from when I was a kid. A
properly rockered hull will probably have less wetted area, so it's
going to make some difference no matter how slow.
--- In bolger@y..., "Richard Spelling" <richard@c...> wrote:
> At the speed a trolling motor will push you, rockered and not
rockered is
> irrelevant.
snip
At the speed a trolling motor will push you, rockered and not rockered is
irrelevant.
Keep the flat bottom, you may want to put a 15hp on it next year.
irrelevant.
Keep the flat bottom, you may want to put a 15hp on it next year.
----- Original Message -----
From: "pfaudette" <pfaudet@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 6:49 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: 16' Sneakeasy?
> That's a great article, I'm sold on the rockered bottom. I found an
> article on calculating displacement, but need a ball park figure for
> the weight of a 16' x 4' plywood boat. Any hints?
>
> Thanks, Pierre.
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
> > You might want to look at:
> >
>http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2000/0401/index.htm#HULL
> SHAPING
>
>
>
> 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
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
> I wonder if there isn't already a displacement Bolger design of theLily, the electric launch. Very stylish. All the electrical power
> appropriate style and size?
issues have been worked out in great detail. Video available, I
believe.
I seem to recall a figure for a stock Sneakeasy of 500 lbs. This one
was built with a fair amount of attention to lightness, with pretty
light plywood. If you use similar techniques and materials, the same
beam, and shorten to 16', maybe you'd have 300 or 350?
Do you need to save slip fees or have a short building space?
Sneakeasy as designed is not a big boat, even though it is long. I
think it probably looks a lot more striking at full length.
I wonder if there isn't already a displacement Bolger design of the
appropriate style and size?
BTW, as I recall no one has been adressing whether your power is
enough. Would probably be worth a little investigating.
was built with a fair amount of attention to lightness, with pretty
light plywood. If you use similar techniques and materials, the same
beam, and shorten to 16', maybe you'd have 300 or 350?
Do you need to save slip fees or have a short building space?
Sneakeasy as designed is not a big boat, even though it is long. I
think it probably looks a lot more striking at full length.
I wonder if there isn't already a displacement Bolger design of the
appropriate style and size?
BTW, as I recall no one has been adressing whether your power is
enough. Would probably be worth a little investigating.
--- In bolger@y..., "pfaudette" <pfaudet@v...> wrote:
> That's a great article, I'm sold on the rockered bottom. I found an
> article on calculating displacement, but need a ball park figure for
> the weight of a 16' x 4' plywood boat. Any hints?
>
> Thanks, Pierre.
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
> > You might want to look at:
> >
>
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2000/0401/index.htm#HULL
> SHAPING
That's a great article, I'm sold on the rockered bottom. I found an
article on calculating displacement, but need a ball park figure for
the weight of a 16' x 4' plywood boat. Any hints?
Thanks, Pierre.
article on calculating displacement, but need a ball park figure for
the weight of a 16' x 4' plywood boat. Any hints?
Thanks, Pierre.
--- In bolger@y..., "rnlocnil" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
> You might want to look at:
>
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2000/0401/index.htm#HULL
SHAPING
Abrupt transitions create drag. You get separated flow (dragging
around a whole bunch of disorderly water), plus you can get surface
waves due to the abrupt transition. On something like Sneakeasy, I'm
guessing it would help to load down by the nose just a tad to get the
bottom of the transom up near the surface so you're not dragging this
huge amound of water that couldn't make the turn. However, that makes
the problem of flow around the chine from the sides to the bottom even
worse, which I'd guess, on a blunt boat like this shortened one, is a
real problem, much more than stock Sneakeasy. On planing hulls, you go
fast enough so the water breaks away cleanly.
I'm sure the boat as planned would seem fine with the electric motor.
You'd only be giving up speed and range.
You might want to look at:
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2000/0401/index.htm#HULL
SHAPING tho you may have to cut and paste the URL, and I'm pretty sure
that it isn't entirely technically correct.
-- In bolger@y..., "pfaudette" <pfaudet@v...> wrote:
around a whole bunch of disorderly water), plus you can get surface
waves due to the abrupt transition. On something like Sneakeasy, I'm
guessing it would help to load down by the nose just a tad to get the
bottom of the transom up near the surface so you're not dragging this
huge amound of water that couldn't make the turn. However, that makes
the problem of flow around the chine from the sides to the bottom even
worse, which I'd guess, on a blunt boat like this shortened one, is a
real problem, much more than stock Sneakeasy. On planing hulls, you go
fast enough so the water breaks away cleanly.
I'm sure the boat as planned would seem fine with the electric motor.
You'd only be giving up speed and range.
You might want to look at:
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2000/0401/index.htm#HULL
SHAPING tho you may have to cut and paste the URL, and I'm pretty sure
that it isn't entirely technically correct.
-- In bolger@y..., "pfaudette" <pfaudet@v...> wrote:
> I've uploaded the 'shrunken' Sneakeasy study plan at:a
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
> 20Sharpies/sneakeasy16.jpg
>
> It does look very similar to the Lake Launch:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
> 20Sharpies/LakeLaunch.gif
>
> Could you please explain why a boat with more rocker is better than
> flat bottom one for displacement speed?
>
> Regards, Pierre.
I've uploaded the 'shrunken' Sneakeasy study plan at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
20Sharpies/sneakeasy16.jpg
It does look very similar to the Lake Launch:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
20Sharpies/LakeLaunch.gif
Could you please explain why a boat with more rocker is better than a
flat bottom one for displacement speed?
Regards, Pierre.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
20Sharpies/sneakeasy16.jpg
It does look very similar to the Lake Launch:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
20Sharpies/LakeLaunch.gif
Could you please explain why a boat with more rocker is better than a
flat bottom one for displacement speed?
Regards, Pierre.
If you want it to look like a Sneakeasy, maybe you can sweep the stern
up in the back below the waterline and fake it while still having
something closer to a displacement hull. I bet it would not detract
from the appearance to make it narrow down a bit back there also. This
all assumes you can work out the reduced displacement issues. OTOH,
maybe Sneakeasy isn't that bad anyway at slow speed. At least it's
narrow.
up in the back below the waterline and fake it while still having
something closer to a displacement hull. I bet it would not detract
from the appearance to make it narrow down a bit back there also. This
all assumes you can work out the reduced displacement issues. OTOH,
maybe Sneakeasy isn't that bad anyway at slow speed. At least it's
narrow.
--- In bolger@y..., "mikestockstill" <mkstocks@b...> wrote:
snip
> I suggest that you consider a hull shape more
conducive
> to displacment speed. snip
> --- In bolger@y..., "pfaudette" <pfaudet@v...> wrote:
> > I've compressed the Sneakeasy study plan widthwise to create an
> > overall length of 16' while keeping the beam the same width,snip
> > electric trolling motors with 30# thrust. Would that work?
> >
> > Regards,
Hi -
That design already exists. It is called Lake Launch, #547, 15'6" x
4'1".
Both Lake Launch and Sneakeasy are intended for planing speed.
Since you know in advance that you are going to always be below
planing speed, I suggest that you consider a hull shape more conducive
to displacment speed. Consider building a power version of an AS-19
hull shape. You can make it much lighter than the sailing version,
and the hull shape will work with you at those slower speeds, rather
than against you.
For that matter, if your intention is to go electric, why not build a
Lily? Construction time would not differ much from a Sneakeasy.
Bye.
Mike
That design already exists. It is called Lake Launch, #547, 15'6" x
4'1".
Both Lake Launch and Sneakeasy are intended for planing speed.
Since you know in advance that you are going to always be below
planing speed, I suggest that you consider a hull shape more conducive
to displacment speed. Consider building a power version of an AS-19
hull shape. You can make it much lighter than the sailing version,
and the hull shape will work with you at those slower speeds, rather
than against you.
For that matter, if your intention is to go electric, why not build a
Lily? Construction time would not differ much from a Sneakeasy.
Bye.
Mike
--- In bolger@y..., "pfaudette" <pfaudet@v...> wrote:
> I've compressed the Sneakeasy study plan widthwise to create an
> overall length of 16' while keeping the beam the same width, and the
> lines still look pretty good. Thinking of using one of the smaller
> electric trolling motors with 30# thrust. Would that work?
>
> Regards,
Yeah, It'll work, the question is how well? Have you posted your plan
and top views for us fellow dreamers to peruse?
and top views for us fellow dreamers to peruse?
I've compressed the Sneakeasy study plan widthwise to create an
overall length of 16' while keeping the beam the same width, and the
lines still look pretty good. Thinking of using one of the smaller
electric trolling motors with 30# thrust. Would that work?
Regards, Pierre.
overall length of 16' while keeping the beam the same width, and the
lines still look pretty good. Thinking of using one of the smaller
electric trolling motors with 30# thrust. Would that work?
Regards, Pierre.