Re: [bolger] Re: long Phallic offshore power boats
On Friday, September 13, 2002, at 03:09 AM, Chance Curtis wrote:
before I spoke up.
Yes not only can you go wider on the Sneakeasy, you should.
I just reread the pertinent Chapters of Lindsey Lords "The Naval
Architecture of Planing Hulls" and at first cut the chin beam should
be about seven feet. I am trying to work up something I can put
in the files to explain my understanding of his reasoning.
If anyone else has a copy of the book keep me honest.
hal
>Sorry I took so long to respond but I needed to refresh my memory
> Darn !!!!! I didnt want to hear that. I was hoping to go at least 5
> ft wide on the Sneakeasy. There was a 20ft x 5ft Sneakeasy in the
> launchings section of the June Woode Boat, but I didnt see it. Can
> anyone scan us a pic of it ? I want to stay with the easy build design
> of the Sneakeasy, is there any other hull design that will work
> besides the step version?
> CCG
before I spoke up.
Yes not only can you go wider on the Sneakeasy, you should.
I just reread the pertinent Chapters of Lindsey Lords "The Naval
Architecture of Planing Hulls" and at first cut the chin beam should
be about seven feet. I am trying to work up something I can put
in the files to explain my understanding of his reasoning.
If anyone else has a copy of the book keep me honest.
hal
In a message dated 9/14/02 2:30:08 AM Central Daylight Time,caj@...
writes:
Great Stuff!!
It is time to start work on your memoirs! You have an obligation to your
natural children, not to mention the public at large. I wonder how many
people are alive today that would consider the opportunity to bale alfalfa in
the San Jaoquin Valley in exchange for a little water-skiing as a privilege?
I guess your folks had you pretty well "snowed" and enured to hard work by
then!
Well, you've promised another installment, and I'm patiently waiting.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writes:
> Next time I relate the Saga of the 1952 Cheoy Lee motor cruiser IWhee!! Pitch-poling a "Crackerbox" at 55 mph! and living to tell about it!
> owned and re-finished. But enough for now.
>
> John
>
>
Great Stuff!!
It is time to start work on your memoirs! You have an obligation to your
natural children, not to mention the public at large. I wonder how many
people are alive today that would consider the opportunity to bale alfalfa in
the San Jaoquin Valley in exchange for a little water-skiing as a privilege?
I guess your folks had you pretty well "snowed" and enured to hard work by
then!
Well, you've promised another installment, and I'm patiently waiting.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bill, I have always had a quest for speed like when the neighbors
coming out of church on Cochran St in McKeesport PA. watched me steer
my peddle car down the very steep street blowing every intersection
at the ripe old age of five. Man, I can still feel the sting of the
beatings I received for that since the neighbors also gave me a few
licks before they handed me over to my mother. The older neighbor
kids who helped push that peddle car to the top of the hill
disappeared.
My cousins on my mom's side owned the site seeing cruises, Golden
Gate Cruises in Pittsburgh PA and now have an Empire of floating
paddle wheel casinos up and down the east coat. I was moved to
California but boating was in our family. I once was taken home by
the police at the age of three in PA. when I went to a boat yard
about five blocks from my home with a penny trying to buy a cabin
cruiser. At least I knew my home address and name. I can't remember
the beating I got then but I do know that after the policeman chewed
my parents out a new lockable latch was put on the front yard gate.
After moving to California my family liked ocean fishing and after
a few smaller boats growing up they bought a commercial fishing boat.
We worked every weekend of the year. We went after Salmon because
they had the best price but if we had no luck we would bottom fish
for Flounders, Halibut, Rockcod and anything else that was not a
sport fish. We paid for our fishing boats that way, one fiish at a
time. We became life long friend with some other fisherman from
Lathrop, Ca. Wally Farrar the Father of their family took me under
his wing and taught me how to sail and built a canvas covered kayak
for me. He was a prolific boat builder and built a small hydro for
his son Alvin. From that time forward I was hooked on fast boats even
way before I had thoughts about my drivers license.
I built a kayak in my 7th grade shop class that won the district
art fair that year because I put a simple flame pattern on the front.
It was navy blue with yellow flames. The shop teacher knew I had a
wood shop at home and he picked three people to build the kayaks but
I was the only one to finish the project that year. We had to pre buy
the material and my dad would have killed me if I didn't finish
because he loaned me the money. With that start I soon built an El
Toro jig and had it measured by an association member and built a few
of them before I stopped because they sailed too slow.
My friendship with our friends in the San Jauquin Valley allowed me
to stay at their house during the weeks of summer working at their
egg farm and bailing their alfalfa fields. We worked from 3:30 am
until 11:30 and then we were allowed to go to the lake skiing and
boating. finally my experience with the crackerbox. Alvin was older
than myself by 5 years but he was like an older brother and always
took me everywhere he and his close friends went. He also had a 64
mustang when they first came out in late 63. We were too cool. His
other buddy David Applegate had a catamaran that was outboard powered
and it was also severely under powered. It had twin 35 hp Johnson's
and barely got our skinny butts out of the water. Wally, Alvin's
father had a big Scott outboard in a boat with a well near the stern.
It was fast but if you skied the fumes would just about kill you.
That's when they decided to build the crackerbox. The whole boat
built using scrounged parts was about $300., including the 283
pumped up Chevy motor that had all the marine parts. Now David was
the Chevy man and Alvin and Wally were Ford people through and
through so there were many battles of 283 Vs. 289. But the Crackerbox
was a screamer but would only hold two in the boat and one person
skiing. If anybody has been in that area of the delta it is miserably
hot in the summer time. So sitting behind that hot engine if it
wasn't for the spray we would have died. The seat is at the very
stern of the 15' boat and if you didn't slow down slowly the stern
wave would wash over your back then you had to bail.
At first we thought this light boat was great but soon it became
apparent that without a second person in the boat the bow would raise
so high that the thru hull fitting for cooling the motor wasn't
working so great and the motor overheated badly. They came up with
the crazy idea of mounting a pole just in front of the dash that
stuck up to attach the ski rope since we could turn the direction of
the boat while skiing from side to side and slinging over wakes and
making the engine overheat. One memorable day at a local reservoir
there was another big boat out and the wind picked up. That boat
turned on a dime but any rough water and it got out of control real
easy. I was skiing and the crackerbox took the wake of the boat just
as I was trying to sling around and pass so I could hit the wake. The
boat stuffed the bow and pitched polled while turning over from my
pulling sideways. My friends were ejected like a catapult and I was
still holding the rope. The rope warped around the boat and the boat
turned an almost 360 sideways in mid air and whipped around doing a
180 in direction of travel rotating like it was on a double axis in
mid air before splashing down again upright facing the opposite
direction.
The throttle was down to almost idle but with that big cam it was
still about 1800 rpm's, we had been skiing at about 55 mph when all
this happened and I suddenly found myself skiing fast toward the side
off the boat. I could see the rope running across the boat and down
the opposite side while the pole was straining and bending toward
where the rope went into the water The poll broke loose from its
mounting and took half the dash with it and I noticed water splashing
when it happened. Finally the other guys that had been ejected were
swimming closer and I could see other boats coming our way. The pole
finally stopped the driveshaft from turning but also punched another
hole in the boat.
My friends survived being shot at least a hundred feet or more in a
long arc from the momentum of the pitch poll. Two nice looking ski
boats came in and the drivers were both drunker than 700 barrels of
shit(please excuse my discription). I got in the cracker box and my
friends both got in one of the ski boats. I had a few rags I was
trying to stuff in the holes and both ski boats attached their lines
to our boat and began towing the crackerbox but both captains were
very drunk. They both started out like they were trying to tow a
skier and they both had big engines. I immediately lost my balance
and fell backward while bent over and stuck my foot under where the
dashboard once was and got it stuck between the oil pan and the rear
motor mount. The oil pan was crazy hot and I could move my foot just
far enough where it didn't burn to bad but I couldn't extract my
foot. The hole in the bottom where the pole had punched through I
could sit on but the holes where the pole had been mounted were like
geysers and I could barely get my eyes over the edge where the dash
had been to see the other boats. I waved my hand at them frantically
and we were about 125 yards off the shore line.
Like I said these guys were drunk and the guy that was not
carrying my friend was on the starboard side and started to hang over
the edge of his boat and started to vomit. He started going to his
starboard side very fast and the other boat started heading to port
and the boat ramp. The tow ropes started looking like an ever
widening vee and the crackerbox was in the middle with one rope tied
to a bow cleat and the other to the main bow ring used to hold it
while trailering. Between the fear of getting my leg brunt and the
look of my friends as they saw my waves with the ever expanding rope
vee I knew another savage event was about to happen. They call the
boats crackerbox's for a good reason there isn't much to them.
POW! I'll never forget the sound of a largish chunk of deck and
bow hurtling forward like a giant slingshot made of crackerbox and
nylon rope then ducking because it was coming back and it looked
faster on the return until one rope broke and sent the chunk into the
stern of the boat the guy throwing up (still) was driving. Several
things went through my mind at that instant, I had lost my glasses
somewhere in the may lay and my parents were going to give me an ass
kicking for sure. The second thing was the realization that the
cracker box had been filling with water and it had been traveling at
about 35 mph towed by drunken idiots. That meant that a huge stern
wave was headed toward the back of the already low free board boat
that now sat six or seven inches lower in the water. The wave just
instantly washed over myself and it wasn't just the wave but the
whole frigging lake!
I looked up and saw the bow sticking up underwater as the boat was
sinking stern first in about 40 feet of water. luckily the water had
cooled the oil pan enough that it made possible the extraction of my
foot. I could see two then three boat right over the top of me as the
crackerbox jolted to the bottom. I finally got out just as the boat
went turtle on the pebbly bottom and I kicked hard to get to the
surface. I remember how ice cold the water felt down there compared
to the 80 degree water we were skiing in. When I came up two people
were diving in to try to save me but they never even made it down to
where the boat was. My friends were as glad to see me as I was also
glad to be alive. If I had been a little older I would have beat the
snot out of the drunk guy who nearly killed me.
It took about ten attempts to dive on the boat and attach the tow
cable from a tow truck that we called with the help of a park rangers
radio to base. The tow truck started and the top of the cracker box
was towed first across the gravel and pebbles then the concrete at
the launch ramp and the driver even helped us load all the pieces and
chunks we found floating after the tow job. We still had to drive
about 40 miles to Lathrop, eat as always a fantastic dinner then go
to bed and awake at 3:30 again. They never rebuilt that boat but
always had n assortment of small home built outboard boats with
engines of at least a hundred horse power. You had to get wet in the
valley summer heat, I wish I had that sort of energy again. I sure
slept well and I grew big and strong from fishing on weekends and
farm work in the summers week days. I still built boats but my taste
was so eclectic that I was hard pressed to decide priority of one
style over another. It was easy to not decide and boat sales happened
a lot when I grew tired of my latest creations
Next time I relate the Saga of the 1952 Cheoy Lee motor cruiser I
owned and re-finished. But enough for now.
John
coming out of church on Cochran St in McKeesport PA. watched me steer
my peddle car down the very steep street blowing every intersection
at the ripe old age of five. Man, I can still feel the sting of the
beatings I received for that since the neighbors also gave me a few
licks before they handed me over to my mother. The older neighbor
kids who helped push that peddle car to the top of the hill
disappeared.
My cousins on my mom's side owned the site seeing cruises, Golden
Gate Cruises in Pittsburgh PA and now have an Empire of floating
paddle wheel casinos up and down the east coat. I was moved to
California but boating was in our family. I once was taken home by
the police at the age of three in PA. when I went to a boat yard
about five blocks from my home with a penny trying to buy a cabin
cruiser. At least I knew my home address and name. I can't remember
the beating I got then but I do know that after the policeman chewed
my parents out a new lockable latch was put on the front yard gate.
After moving to California my family liked ocean fishing and after
a few smaller boats growing up they bought a commercial fishing boat.
We worked every weekend of the year. We went after Salmon because
they had the best price but if we had no luck we would bottom fish
for Flounders, Halibut, Rockcod and anything else that was not a
sport fish. We paid for our fishing boats that way, one fiish at a
time. We became life long friend with some other fisherman from
Lathrop, Ca. Wally Farrar the Father of their family took me under
his wing and taught me how to sail and built a canvas covered kayak
for me. He was a prolific boat builder and built a small hydro for
his son Alvin. From that time forward I was hooked on fast boats even
way before I had thoughts about my drivers license.
I built a kayak in my 7th grade shop class that won the district
art fair that year because I put a simple flame pattern on the front.
It was navy blue with yellow flames. The shop teacher knew I had a
wood shop at home and he picked three people to build the kayaks but
I was the only one to finish the project that year. We had to pre buy
the material and my dad would have killed me if I didn't finish
because he loaned me the money. With that start I soon built an El
Toro jig and had it measured by an association member and built a few
of them before I stopped because they sailed too slow.
My friendship with our friends in the San Jauquin Valley allowed me
to stay at their house during the weeks of summer working at their
egg farm and bailing their alfalfa fields. We worked from 3:30 am
until 11:30 and then we were allowed to go to the lake skiing and
boating. finally my experience with the crackerbox. Alvin was older
than myself by 5 years but he was like an older brother and always
took me everywhere he and his close friends went. He also had a 64
mustang when they first came out in late 63. We were too cool. His
other buddy David Applegate had a catamaran that was outboard powered
and it was also severely under powered. It had twin 35 hp Johnson's
and barely got our skinny butts out of the water. Wally, Alvin's
father had a big Scott outboard in a boat with a well near the stern.
It was fast but if you skied the fumes would just about kill you.
That's when they decided to build the crackerbox. The whole boat
built using scrounged parts was about $300., including the 283
pumped up Chevy motor that had all the marine parts. Now David was
the Chevy man and Alvin and Wally were Ford people through and
through so there were many battles of 283 Vs. 289. But the Crackerbox
was a screamer but would only hold two in the boat and one person
skiing. If anybody has been in that area of the delta it is miserably
hot in the summer time. So sitting behind that hot engine if it
wasn't for the spray we would have died. The seat is at the very
stern of the 15' boat and if you didn't slow down slowly the stern
wave would wash over your back then you had to bail.
At first we thought this light boat was great but soon it became
apparent that without a second person in the boat the bow would raise
so high that the thru hull fitting for cooling the motor wasn't
working so great and the motor overheated badly. They came up with
the crazy idea of mounting a pole just in front of the dash that
stuck up to attach the ski rope since we could turn the direction of
the boat while skiing from side to side and slinging over wakes and
making the engine overheat. One memorable day at a local reservoir
there was another big boat out and the wind picked up. That boat
turned on a dime but any rough water and it got out of control real
easy. I was skiing and the crackerbox took the wake of the boat just
as I was trying to sling around and pass so I could hit the wake. The
boat stuffed the bow and pitched polled while turning over from my
pulling sideways. My friends were ejected like a catapult and I was
still holding the rope. The rope warped around the boat and the boat
turned an almost 360 sideways in mid air and whipped around doing a
180 in direction of travel rotating like it was on a double axis in
mid air before splashing down again upright facing the opposite
direction.
The throttle was down to almost idle but with that big cam it was
still about 1800 rpm's, we had been skiing at about 55 mph when all
this happened and I suddenly found myself skiing fast toward the side
off the boat. I could see the rope running across the boat and down
the opposite side while the pole was straining and bending toward
where the rope went into the water The poll broke loose from its
mounting and took half the dash with it and I noticed water splashing
when it happened. Finally the other guys that had been ejected were
swimming closer and I could see other boats coming our way. The pole
finally stopped the driveshaft from turning but also punched another
hole in the boat.
My friends survived being shot at least a hundred feet or more in a
long arc from the momentum of the pitch poll. Two nice looking ski
boats came in and the drivers were both drunker than 700 barrels of
shit(please excuse my discription). I got in the cracker box and my
friends both got in one of the ski boats. I had a few rags I was
trying to stuff in the holes and both ski boats attached their lines
to our boat and began towing the crackerbox but both captains were
very drunk. They both started out like they were trying to tow a
skier and they both had big engines. I immediately lost my balance
and fell backward while bent over and stuck my foot under where the
dashboard once was and got it stuck between the oil pan and the rear
motor mount. The oil pan was crazy hot and I could move my foot just
far enough where it didn't burn to bad but I couldn't extract my
foot. The hole in the bottom where the pole had punched through I
could sit on but the holes where the pole had been mounted were like
geysers and I could barely get my eyes over the edge where the dash
had been to see the other boats. I waved my hand at them frantically
and we were about 125 yards off the shore line.
Like I said these guys were drunk and the guy that was not
carrying my friend was on the starboard side and started to hang over
the edge of his boat and started to vomit. He started going to his
starboard side very fast and the other boat started heading to port
and the boat ramp. The tow ropes started looking like an ever
widening vee and the crackerbox was in the middle with one rope tied
to a bow cleat and the other to the main bow ring used to hold it
while trailering. Between the fear of getting my leg brunt and the
look of my friends as they saw my waves with the ever expanding rope
vee I knew another savage event was about to happen. They call the
boats crackerbox's for a good reason there isn't much to them.
POW! I'll never forget the sound of a largish chunk of deck and
bow hurtling forward like a giant slingshot made of crackerbox and
nylon rope then ducking because it was coming back and it looked
faster on the return until one rope broke and sent the chunk into the
stern of the boat the guy throwing up (still) was driving. Several
things went through my mind at that instant, I had lost my glasses
somewhere in the may lay and my parents were going to give me an ass
kicking for sure. The second thing was the realization that the
cracker box had been filling with water and it had been traveling at
about 35 mph towed by drunken idiots. That meant that a huge stern
wave was headed toward the back of the already low free board boat
that now sat six or seven inches lower in the water. The wave just
instantly washed over myself and it wasn't just the wave but the
whole frigging lake!
I looked up and saw the bow sticking up underwater as the boat was
sinking stern first in about 40 feet of water. luckily the water had
cooled the oil pan enough that it made possible the extraction of my
foot. I could see two then three boat right over the top of me as the
crackerbox jolted to the bottom. I finally got out just as the boat
went turtle on the pebbly bottom and I kicked hard to get to the
surface. I remember how ice cold the water felt down there compared
to the 80 degree water we were skiing in. When I came up two people
were diving in to try to save me but they never even made it down to
where the boat was. My friends were as glad to see me as I was also
glad to be alive. If I had been a little older I would have beat the
snot out of the drunk guy who nearly killed me.
It took about ten attempts to dive on the boat and attach the tow
cable from a tow truck that we called with the help of a park rangers
radio to base. The tow truck started and the top of the cracker box
was towed first across the gravel and pebbles then the concrete at
the launch ramp and the driver even helped us load all the pieces and
chunks we found floating after the tow job. We still had to drive
about 40 miles to Lathrop, eat as always a fantastic dinner then go
to bed and awake at 3:30 again. They never rebuilt that boat but
always had n assortment of small home built outboard boats with
engines of at least a hundred horse power. You had to get wet in the
valley summer heat, I wish I had that sort of energy again. I sure
slept well and I grew big and strong from fishing on weekends and
farm work in the summers week days. I still built boats but my taste
was so eclectic that I was hard pressed to decide priority of one
style over another. It was easy to not decide and boat sales happened
a lot when I grew tired of my latest creations
Next time I relate the Saga of the 1952 Cheoy Lee motor cruiser I
owned and re-finished. But enough for now.
John
--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/12/02 2:25:01 AM Central Daylight Time,
caj@k...
> writes:
>
>
> > I
> > wanted to let you guys know that I am familiar with very fast
light
> > boats with flat bottoms.
>
> Now you tell us what an impressive resume you have! (after teasing
diletantes
> like me into spouting off!)
>
> I think that before you make your wife a contented widow by rolling
over that
> twin-turbo, inter-cooled, nitro-burning, bi-rotor, Wankel-powered
> "Sneakeasy", you should share with the rest of us some of your
experiences
> with a "Crackerbox" and a "Sanger" (?) (I've never heard of the
latter, and
> have never seen any of the former)
>
> All seriousness aside, you may be the only member of this group
with any
> experience with these types. I would certainly love to hear some
yarns about
> these boats.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In a message dated 9/13/02 4:42:22 AM Central Daylight Time,
sneakeasy2002@...writes:
that beat "Baby Bootlegger" in the 1924 Gold Cup race as "Maple Leaf IV". The
boat I was referring to was also Canadian, but actually named "Rainbow IV". A
photo and lines appear in D.W. Fostle's "Speedboat".)
In his discussion of "Wyoming" in BWAOM, Bolger says that a box-cutwater
version could be could be made as beamy as one would like - out to
"Microtrawler" proportions (e.g. 27' beam for "Wyoming"). I guess the same
would apply to the box-cutwater "Sneakeasy". Pick the beam needed to float
the boat, and apply the rules of proportion that Bolger is using, whatever
they may be.
I don't have any experience with these box-cutwater designs, but Bolger says
they work and he seems a reliable source. I doubt if there are any viable
alternatives other than building a hull with deadrise. That would require
using an entirely different design. Somewhere Bolger says that putting
external strips on the bottom helps, but only up to a point, and the ultimate
failure mode is the same. Small racing outboard boats used (probably still
do) aluminum fins of considerable depth for the boats' sizes. I don't know if
this was to prevent tripping, or effects of windage or both. It would be an
awkward solution, if it is in fact a solution to the tripping problem, as it
increases draught and would complicate trailering.
It occurs to me that the construction of the box-cutwater version of
"Sneakeasy" could be modified to create a longitudinal girder of great
strength using the sides of the cutwater. This would do violence to Bolger's
design, but nothing compared to what I believe is being already contempated
to create an ersatz-"Baby Bootlegger".
As drawn, the sides of the cutwater are only as deep as the extent to which
the cutwater projects below the flanking bottoms of the hull proper. The
sides are butted against the bottoms, which overlap the sides and two
internal keel stringers which join the components.
An alternative assembly could have the bottoms butted against the cutwater
sides and joined by keel stringers attached to the outside of the cutwater
sides and above the bottoms. In this fashion, the depth of the cutwater sides
would be independent of the projection below the bottoms, with the additional
depth of the side projecting up into the hull interior. It the tops of the
projecting sides of the cutwater were suitably braced, the cutwater assembly
could form an very stiff girder. The cutwater sides, if suitably reinforced,
MIGHT provide the necessary engine beds for I/B power. (This would depend on
the beam of the cutwater and the spacing width of the engine mounts. If the
cutwater beam was to narrow, the projecting sides might preclude mounting the
engine at a satisfactory height and shaft angle.) I will attempt to diagram
the scheme below.
Drawbacks include use of more plywood, possible greater difficulty of
assembly and the need to draw a new construction plan. Weight would be
greater, but compared to the addition of I/B power, I think this would be
trivial. It would cut up whatever vestigial room remained for a rear cockpit
into three longitudinal compartments separated by the vertical portions of
the girder, which might be awkward. (One solution to the latter problem would
be to follow the example of the 1911 Harmsworth Trophy contender "Dixie IV" -
on that boat the driver sat perched upon a saddle perched above the rear deck
and steered with a horizontal wheel on a vertical shaft. For some reason,
this scheme doesn't seem to inspired much emulation!)
There might be more fundamental drawbacks to the proposed construction
scheme. None of the designs for Bolger's box-cutwater boats that I've seen
use it. I can't see any obvious reason why it might not have been used,
possibly to advantage, on "Hawkeye", but I wouldn't be surprised to learn
that Bolger considered it and rejected it for reasons that are not apparent
to me.
I've tried to diagram the construction proposal below. It looks pretty clear
on AOL mail, as I compose it, but if it gets corrupted into a meaningless
confusion of typographic symbols in transmission, I will not be surprised. If
anyone has any hints on how to send crude sketches like this via e-mail
without use of file attachments, I'd appreciate learning about them.
as designed: ___________ ____________
[X X]
[____________]
as proposed: [ - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ ]
_________X[ ]X__________
[ ]
[____________]
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sneakeasy2002@...writes:
> OK guys but I am first! I want a wider Sneakeasy, how do i change the(For the record, I believe in a prior post I incorrectly identified the boat
> botton to to satisfy the tripping Gods.
> CCG
>
that beat "Baby Bootlegger" in the 1924 Gold Cup race as "Maple Leaf IV". The
boat I was referring to was also Canadian, but actually named "Rainbow IV". A
photo and lines appear in D.W. Fostle's "Speedboat".)
In his discussion of "Wyoming" in BWAOM, Bolger says that a box-cutwater
version could be could be made as beamy as one would like - out to
"Microtrawler" proportions (e.g. 27' beam for "Wyoming"). I guess the same
would apply to the box-cutwater "Sneakeasy". Pick the beam needed to float
the boat, and apply the rules of proportion that Bolger is using, whatever
they may be.
I don't have any experience with these box-cutwater designs, but Bolger says
they work and he seems a reliable source. I doubt if there are any viable
alternatives other than building a hull with deadrise. That would require
using an entirely different design. Somewhere Bolger says that putting
external strips on the bottom helps, but only up to a point, and the ultimate
failure mode is the same. Small racing outboard boats used (probably still
do) aluminum fins of considerable depth for the boats' sizes. I don't know if
this was to prevent tripping, or effects of windage or both. It would be an
awkward solution, if it is in fact a solution to the tripping problem, as it
increases draught and would complicate trailering.
It occurs to me that the construction of the box-cutwater version of
"Sneakeasy" could be modified to create a longitudinal girder of great
strength using the sides of the cutwater. This would do violence to Bolger's
design, but nothing compared to what I believe is being already contempated
to create an ersatz-"Baby Bootlegger".
As drawn, the sides of the cutwater are only as deep as the extent to which
the cutwater projects below the flanking bottoms of the hull proper. The
sides are butted against the bottoms, which overlap the sides and two
internal keel stringers which join the components.
An alternative assembly could have the bottoms butted against the cutwater
sides and joined by keel stringers attached to the outside of the cutwater
sides and above the bottoms. In this fashion, the depth of the cutwater sides
would be independent of the projection below the bottoms, with the additional
depth of the side projecting up into the hull interior. It the tops of the
projecting sides of the cutwater were suitably braced, the cutwater assembly
could form an very stiff girder. The cutwater sides, if suitably reinforced,
MIGHT provide the necessary engine beds for I/B power. (This would depend on
the beam of the cutwater and the spacing width of the engine mounts. If the
cutwater beam was to narrow, the projecting sides might preclude mounting the
engine at a satisfactory height and shaft angle.) I will attempt to diagram
the scheme below.
Drawbacks include use of more plywood, possible greater difficulty of
assembly and the need to draw a new construction plan. Weight would be
greater, but compared to the addition of I/B power, I think this would be
trivial. It would cut up whatever vestigial room remained for a rear cockpit
into three longitudinal compartments separated by the vertical portions of
the girder, which might be awkward. (One solution to the latter problem would
be to follow the example of the 1911 Harmsworth Trophy contender "Dixie IV" -
on that boat the driver sat perched upon a saddle perched above the rear deck
and steered with a horizontal wheel on a vertical shaft. For some reason,
this scheme doesn't seem to inspired much emulation!)
There might be more fundamental drawbacks to the proposed construction
scheme. None of the designs for Bolger's box-cutwater boats that I've seen
use it. I can't see any obvious reason why it might not have been used,
possibly to advantage, on "Hawkeye", but I wouldn't be surprised to learn
that Bolger considered it and rejected it for reasons that are not apparent
to me.
I've tried to diagram the construction proposal below. It looks pretty clear
on AOL mail, as I compose it, but if it gets corrupted into a meaningless
confusion of typographic symbols in transmission, I will not be surprised. If
anyone has any hints on how to send crude sketches like this via e-mail
without use of file attachments, I'd appreciate learning about them.
as designed: ___________ ____________
[X X]
[____________]
as proposed: [ - - - - - - - - - - ]
[ ]
_________X[ ]X__________
[ ]
[____________]
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You might try some mild deadrise or Vee, of about 7-9 degrees. That
should only be about 3 -3 1/2 inchs over a 5 ft wide bottom. Don't
know if this would nullify it being a Sneakeasy. It would make it a
little tenderer though, but not by much. It would also increase the
building difficulty somewhat.
Steve.
should only be about 3 -3 1/2 inchs over a 5 ft wide bottom. Don't
know if this would nullify it being a Sneakeasy. It would make it a
little tenderer though, but not by much. It would also increase the
building difficulty somewhat.
Steve.
--- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
>
> OK guys but I am first! I want a wider Sneakeasy, how do i
change the botton to to satisfy the tripping Gods.
> CCG
> wmrpage@a... wrote:In a message dated 9/12/02 2:25:01 AM Central
Daylight Time, caj@k...
> writes:
>
>
> > I
> > wanted to let you guys know that I am familiar with very fast
light
> > boats with flat bottoms.
>
> Now you tell us what an impressive resume you have! (after teasing
diletantes
> like me into spouting off!)
>
> I think that before you make your wife a contented widow by rolling
over that
> twin-turbo, inter-cooled, nitro-burning, bi-rotor, Wankel-powered
> "Sneakeasy", you should share with the rest of us some of your
experiences
> with a "Crackerbox" and a "Sanger" (?) (I've never heard of the
latter, and
> have never seen any of the former)
>
> All seriousness aside, you may be the only member of this group
with any
> experience with these types. I would certainly love to hear some
yarns about
> these boats.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> 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@y...
> - Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@y...
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
OK guys but I am first! I want a wider Sneakeasy, how do i change the botton to to satisfy the tripping Gods.
CCG
wmrpage@...wrote:In a message dated 9/12/02 2:25:01 AM Central Daylight Time,caj@...
writes:
like me into spouting off!)
I think that before you make your wife a contented widow by rolling over that
twin-turbo, inter-cooled, nitro-burning, bi-rotor, Wankel-powered
"Sneakeasy", you should share with the rest of us some of your experiences
with a "Crackerbox" and a "Sanger" (?) (I've never heard of the latter, and
have never seen any of the former)
All seriousness aside, you may be the only member of this group with any
experience with these types. I would certainly love to hear some yarns about
these boats.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
CCG
wmrpage@...wrote:In a message dated 9/12/02 2:25:01 AM Central Daylight Time,caj@...
writes:
> INow you tell us what an impressive resume you have! (after teasing diletantes
> wanted to let you guys know that I am familiar with very fast light
> boats with flat bottoms.
like me into spouting off!)
I think that before you make your wife a contented widow by rolling over that
twin-turbo, inter-cooled, nitro-burning, bi-rotor, Wankel-powered
"Sneakeasy", you should share with the rest of us some of your experiences
with a "Crackerbox" and a "Sanger" (?) (I've never heard of the latter, and
have never seen any of the former)
All seriousness aside, you may be the only member of this group with any
experience with these types. I would certainly love to hear some yarns about
these boats.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Darn !!!!! I didnt want to hear that. I was hoping to go at least 5 ft wide on the Sneakeasy. There was a 20ft x 5ft Sneakeasy in the launchings section of the June Woode Boat, but I didnt see it. Can anyone scan us a pic of it ? I want to stay with the easy build design of the Sneakeasy, is there any other hull design that will work besides the step version?
CCG
boatbuilding@...wrote:I would not make the design wider. Most power sharpies need to
be at a 6:1 ratio of length to width. Less than that and you
get real handling problems. The nose will dig into waves and
want to dive. The Tennessee is closer to a 5:1 but it has
rocker in the bottom to help compensate and isn't designed for
high speeds. Same for the Dakota.
The flat bottom and single chine design cause for higher
pressure to build up on the hull sides than the bottom so the
bow tends to dive down until it picks up enough floatation to
bounce up. Meanwhile the stern is trying to come around. With
a 6:1 ratio or better the problems are greatly reduced but the
boat should be limited to waters without swells. Small waves
are okay as the bow pushes through faster but it still requires
some caution if heading directly into the wave.
I would guess that at higher speeds the problem could be a
danger. Stay on rivers or glass smooth waters at higher
speeds. If it gets rough, slow up.
Jeff
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
CCG
boatbuilding@...wrote:I would not make the design wider. Most power sharpies need to
be at a 6:1 ratio of length to width. Less than that and you
get real handling problems. The nose will dig into waves and
want to dive. The Tennessee is closer to a 5:1 but it has
rocker in the bottom to help compensate and isn't designed for
high speeds. Same for the Dakota.
The flat bottom and single chine design cause for higher
pressure to build up on the hull sides than the bottom so the
bow tends to dive down until it picks up enough floatation to
bounce up. Meanwhile the stern is trying to come around. With
a 6:1 ratio or better the problems are greatly reduced but the
boat should be limited to waters without swells. Small waves
are okay as the bow pushes through faster but it still requires
some caution if heading directly into the wave.
I would guess that at higher speeds the problem could be a
danger. Stay on rivers or glass smooth waters at higher
speeds. If it gets rough, slow up.
Jeff
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In a message dated 9/12/02 2:25:01 AM Central Daylight Time,caj@...
writes:
like me into spouting off!)
I think that before you make your wife a contented widow by rolling over that
twin-turbo, inter-cooled, nitro-burning, bi-rotor, Wankel-powered
"Sneakeasy", you should share with the rest of us some of your experiences
with a "Crackerbox" and a "Sanger" (?) (I've never heard of the latter, and
have never seen any of the former)
All seriousness aside, you may be the only member of this group with any
experience with these types. I would certainly love to hear some yarns about
these boats.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writes:
> INow you tell us what an impressive resume you have! (after teasing diletantes
> wanted to let you guys know that I am familiar with very fast light
> boats with flat bottoms.
like me into spouting off!)
I think that before you make your wife a contented widow by rolling over that
twin-turbo, inter-cooled, nitro-burning, bi-rotor, Wankel-powered
"Sneakeasy", you should share with the rest of us some of your experiences
with a "Crackerbox" and a "Sanger" (?) (I've never heard of the latter, and
have never seen any of the former)
All seriousness aside, you may be the only member of this group with any
experience with these types. I would certainly love to hear some yarns about
these boats.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I would not make the design wider. Most power sharpies need to
be at a 6:1 ratio of length to width. Less than that and you
get real handling problems. The nose will dig into waves and
want to dive. The Tennessee is closer to a 5:1 but it has
rocker in the bottom to help compensate and isn't designed for
high speeds. Same for the Dakota.
The flat bottom and single chine design cause for higher
pressure to build up on the hull sides than the bottom so the
bow tends to dive down until it picks up enough floatation to
bounce up. Meanwhile the stern is trying to come around. With
a 6:1 ratio or better the problems are greatly reduced but the
boat should be limited to waters without swells. Small waves
are okay as the bow pushes through faster but it still requires
some caution if heading directly into the wave.
I would guess that at higher speeds the problem could be a
danger. Stay on rivers or glass smooth waters at higher
speeds. If it gets rough, slow up.
Jeff
be at a 6:1 ratio of length to width. Less than that and you
get real handling problems. The nose will dig into waves and
want to dive. The Tennessee is closer to a 5:1 but it has
rocker in the bottom to help compensate and isn't designed for
high speeds. Same for the Dakota.
The flat bottom and single chine design cause for higher
pressure to build up on the hull sides than the bottom so the
bow tends to dive down until it picks up enough floatation to
bounce up. Meanwhile the stern is trying to come around. With
a 6:1 ratio or better the problems are greatly reduced but the
boat should be limited to waters without swells. Small waves
are okay as the bow pushes through faster but it still requires
some caution if heading directly into the wave.
I would guess that at higher speeds the problem could be a
danger. Stay on rivers or glass smooth waters at higher
speeds. If it gets rough, slow up.
Jeff
John Cupp and everyone else:
You win. I do agree that Sneakeay is a great design. I also agree that for pure design and beauty it begs to be an inboard. Its the high speed we disagree about. Having said that, my idea is to build a wider version (5 or 6ft wide) and put a large (50hp) outboard in a motor well. I believe PCB made it 4ft wide for conservation of material, plywood comes 4ft wide. The end result would be a more useful boat that would have the looks of an inboard. I know nothing about motor wells-- will this work?
John Cupp wrote:
CCG, I haven't had a chance to responded yet because my wife dragged
me to a 9-11 memorial service, I don't get out much these days. I
wanted to let you guys know that I am familiar with very fast light
boats with flat bottoms. One is a crackerbox racing boat I drove that
a friend owned while I was a teenager. Not much stouter than a
Sneakeasy and with a very powerful engine. The next flat bottom boat
I drove was a Sanger flat bottom with a vee drive and a 401 buick
with fuel injection. The boat caught on fire in my bosses garage and
burnt some paint and upholstery because of a leak in the pressure
line for the system((70 psi)when he tried a test firing inside the
garage. I cleaned the boat up after paying $500.00 for it because his
wife told him the boat or her.
I was 21 years old and the boat was the fastest thing I had ever
driven on the water. The worst thing that happened was a prop blade
came off and put a nasty hole in the bottom. The Sanger went faster
but the cracker box felt more out of control. I must say that I want
to put an even smaller engine than the crackerbox had in it. After
looking at the step chine I agree that a jet drive would be better
but I would still like the engine further forward. Perhaps a addition
between the two slanted float boxes to hold the pump and steering
with a small hydraulic pump for steering. I have installed lots of
jet drives while I managed an Algae company on Klamath lake. I have
been in special fabrication jobs nearly all my life when I wasn't
fishing on my family's commercial fishing boat.
While I went to DeAnza College in Cupertino, Ca. to get my degree in
machine tool technology I worked on a OJT program(on the job
training) through the college at Ames Research Center for NASA
located in Moffet field California. I have also built boats since my
father would let me in our wood shop. they were not always pretty but
they always were able to float. I am also a certified welder and
received my certification at Ames Research Center. I have reviewed
the pictures of the construction that are available for the Sneakeasy
and I still maintain that a two cubic foot rotary engine, not a huge
cast iron Chevy should work with a few minor changes.
I think the step chine hull of the Sneakeasy is as strong as the 15'
crackerbox or even stronger. I also think that people are overly
concerned with tight corners. I have no intention of doing a Bat turn
at 90 MPH and like any high performance boat I won't take it out
unless the lake is very smooth. I may seem to have a crazy idea but
I'm not an idiot. I also think the design of the Snow Leopard is ugly
compared to the sleek lines of the Sneakeasy. A rotary is only a
little heavier than an outboard with 2/3 less power. Like you pointed
out a jet drive would work better, especially with the step chine
being a perfect placement for the pump inlet. I appreciate all of
your concerns and suggestions and I don't pass them off as illogical
but I do have some background experience that makes me positive it
can be done safely. Someday soon I hope.
Thank You All,
John
You win. I do agree that Sneakeay is a great design. I also agree that for pure design and beauty it begs to be an inboard. Its the high speed we disagree about. Having said that, my idea is to build a wider version (5 or 6ft wide) and put a large (50hp) outboard in a motor well. I believe PCB made it 4ft wide for conservation of material, plywood comes 4ft wide. The end result would be a more useful boat that would have the looks of an inboard. I know nothing about motor wells-- will this work?
John Cupp wrote:
CCG, I haven't had a chance to responded yet because my wife dragged
me to a 9-11 memorial service, I don't get out much these days. I
wanted to let you guys know that I am familiar with very fast light
boats with flat bottoms. One is a crackerbox racing boat I drove that
a friend owned while I was a teenager. Not much stouter than a
Sneakeasy and with a very powerful engine. The next flat bottom boat
I drove was a Sanger flat bottom with a vee drive and a 401 buick
with fuel injection. The boat caught on fire in my bosses garage and
burnt some paint and upholstery because of a leak in the pressure
line for the system((70 psi)when he tried a test firing inside the
garage. I cleaned the boat up after paying $500.00 for it because his
wife told him the boat or her.
I was 21 years old and the boat was the fastest thing I had ever
driven on the water. The worst thing that happened was a prop blade
came off and put a nasty hole in the bottom. The Sanger went faster
but the cracker box felt more out of control. I must say that I want
to put an even smaller engine than the crackerbox had in it. After
looking at the step chine I agree that a jet drive would be better
but I would still like the engine further forward. Perhaps a addition
between the two slanted float boxes to hold the pump and steering
with a small hydraulic pump for steering. I have installed lots of
jet drives while I managed an Algae company on Klamath lake. I have
been in special fabrication jobs nearly all my life when I wasn't
fishing on my family's commercial fishing boat.
While I went to DeAnza College in Cupertino, Ca. to get my degree in
machine tool technology I worked on a OJT program(on the job
training) through the college at Ames Research Center for NASA
located in Moffet field California. I have also built boats since my
father would let me in our wood shop. they were not always pretty but
they always were able to float. I am also a certified welder and
received my certification at Ames Research Center. I have reviewed
the pictures of the construction that are available for the Sneakeasy
and I still maintain that a two cubic foot rotary engine, not a huge
cast iron Chevy should work with a few minor changes.
I think the step chine hull of the Sneakeasy is as strong as the 15'
crackerbox or even stronger. I also think that people are overly
concerned with tight corners. I have no intention of doing a Bat turn
at 90 MPH and like any high performance boat I won't take it out
unless the lake is very smooth. I may seem to have a crazy idea but
I'm not an idiot. I also think the design of the Snow Leopard is ugly
compared to the sleek lines of the Sneakeasy. A rotary is only a
little heavier than an outboard with 2/3 less power. Like you pointed
out a jet drive would work better, especially with the step chine
being a perfect placement for the pump inlet. I appreciate all of
your concerns and suggestions and I don't pass them off as illogical
but I do have some background experience that makes me positive it
can be done safely. Someday soon I hope.
Thank You All,
John
--- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
>
> John
> I don't think anyone is challenging your ability to put a large
inboard engine in a Sneakeasy. What is in debate are the results of
such an installation. Although the Sneakeasy's hull may seem
compatible to that application, it is not. For no other reason you
will be unable to turn the craft and high-speeds. However, that will
be of little consequence because the boat will selfdestruct before
posing that threat. What others in this group (much more informed
than me) are trying to convey is that the high torque of the engine
cannot be transmitted to the propeller in an efficient manner,
therefore the boat itself will "torque" and twist because the boat
does not have an equivalent mass ratio to the engine. In airplanes it
is called the "P" factor. When large propeller driven fighter plane
takes off to the torque is so great that the plane wants to rotate
instead of the propeller. This problem was solved by using a variable
pitched propeller. You did not have that luxury in the Sneakeasy. Hot
rods burn rubber when the horsepower is not transmitted to the
ground. In your proposed boat the energy is transmitted to the wood
and fiberglass. The harmonic vibrations resulting from the engine
installed in a fragile craft will result in the breakdown of the long
molecule fibers in both the wood and the fiberglass challenging the
integrity of the entire boat.
> Yes they did laugh at Christopher Columbus. But they didn't laugh
at Christopher Columbus Smith, the founder of Chris Craft. He too had
an overwhelming desire to put large engines in boats, but in his
designs the boat was designed first to except the punishment of large
engines.
> Should your experiment fail, you won't need to worry about selling
the boat. That responsibility will fall to your next of kin.
> Having thoroughly trashed another man's dream, and in the spirit of
this group I offer another suggestion. If speed in a Sneakeasy is
your goal, look to jet power. In that scenario the power and thrust
is transmitted more uniformly and although low in torque, the high-
end speeds might be impressive. Before you look at the big 455
blocks , I would consider two large jet ski units. Controlled
independently this setup could improve steering control that high-
speeds, if you consider 40mph high-speed. Why do I get the feeling
I've created another monster?
> Good Luck
> CCG
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
CCG, I haven't had a chance to responded yet because my wife dragged
me to a 9-11 memorial service, I don't get out much these days. I
wanted to let you guys know that I am familiar with very fast light
boats with flat bottoms. One is a crackerbox racing boat I drove that
a friend owned while I was a teenager. Not much stouter than a
Sneakeasy and with a very powerful engine. The next flat bottom boat
I drove was a Sanger flat bottom with a vee drive and a 401 buick
with fuel injection. The boat caught on fire in my bosses garage and
burnt some paint and upholstery because of a leak in the pressure
line for the system((70 psi)when he tried a test firing inside the
garage. I cleaned the boat up after paying $500.00 for it because his
wife told him the boat or her.
I was 21 years old and the boat was the fastest thing I had ever
driven on the water. The worst thing that happened was a prop blade
came off and put a nasty hole in the bottom. The Sanger went faster
but the cracker box felt more out of control. I must say that I want
to put an even smaller engine than the crackerbox had in it. After
looking at the step chine I agree that a jet drive would be better
but I would still like the engine further forward. Perhaps a addition
between the two slanted float boxes to hold the pump and steering
with a small hydraulic pump for steering. I have installed lots of
jet drives while I managed an Algae company on Klamath lake. I have
been in special fabrication jobs nearly all my life when I wasn't
fishing on my family's commercial fishing boat.
While I went to DeAnza College in Cupertino, Ca. to get my degree in
machine tool technology I worked on a OJT program(on the job
training) through the college at Ames Research Center for NASA
located in Moffet field California. I have also built boats since my
father would let me in our wood shop. they were not always pretty but
they always were able to float. I am also a certified welder and
received my certification at Ames Research Center. I have reviewed
the pictures of the construction that are available for the Sneakeasy
and I still maintain that a two cubic foot rotary engine, not a huge
cast iron Chevy should work with a few minor changes.
I think the step chine hull of the Sneakeasy is as strong as the 15'
crackerbox or even stronger. I also think that people are overly
concerned with tight corners. I have no intention of doing a Bat turn
at 90 MPH and like any high performance boat I won't take it out
unless the lake is very smooth. I may seem to have a crazy idea but
I'm not an idiot. I also think the design of the Snow Leopard is ugly
compared to the sleek lines of the Sneakeasy. A rotary is only a
little heavier than an outboard with 2/3 less power. Like you pointed
out a jet drive would work better, especially with the step chine
being a perfect placement for the pump inlet. I appreciate all of
your concerns and suggestions and I don't pass them off as illogical
but I do have some background experience that makes me positive it
can be done safely. Someday soon I hope.
Thank You All,
John
me to a 9-11 memorial service, I don't get out much these days. I
wanted to let you guys know that I am familiar with very fast light
boats with flat bottoms. One is a crackerbox racing boat I drove that
a friend owned while I was a teenager. Not much stouter than a
Sneakeasy and with a very powerful engine. The next flat bottom boat
I drove was a Sanger flat bottom with a vee drive and a 401 buick
with fuel injection. The boat caught on fire in my bosses garage and
burnt some paint and upholstery because of a leak in the pressure
line for the system((70 psi)when he tried a test firing inside the
garage. I cleaned the boat up after paying $500.00 for it because his
wife told him the boat or her.
I was 21 years old and the boat was the fastest thing I had ever
driven on the water. The worst thing that happened was a prop blade
came off and put a nasty hole in the bottom. The Sanger went faster
but the cracker box felt more out of control. I must say that I want
to put an even smaller engine than the crackerbox had in it. After
looking at the step chine I agree that a jet drive would be better
but I would still like the engine further forward. Perhaps a addition
between the two slanted float boxes to hold the pump and steering
with a small hydraulic pump for steering. I have installed lots of
jet drives while I managed an Algae company on Klamath lake. I have
been in special fabrication jobs nearly all my life when I wasn't
fishing on my family's commercial fishing boat.
While I went to DeAnza College in Cupertino, Ca. to get my degree in
machine tool technology I worked on a OJT program(on the job
training) through the college at Ames Research Center for NASA
located in Moffet field California. I have also built boats since my
father would let me in our wood shop. they were not always pretty but
they always were able to float. I am also a certified welder and
received my certification at Ames Research Center. I have reviewed
the pictures of the construction that are available for the Sneakeasy
and I still maintain that a two cubic foot rotary engine, not a huge
cast iron Chevy should work with a few minor changes.
I think the step chine hull of the Sneakeasy is as strong as the 15'
crackerbox or even stronger. I also think that people are overly
concerned with tight corners. I have no intention of doing a Bat turn
at 90 MPH and like any high performance boat I won't take it out
unless the lake is very smooth. I may seem to have a crazy idea but
I'm not an idiot. I also think the design of the Snow Leopard is ugly
compared to the sleek lines of the Sneakeasy. A rotary is only a
little heavier than an outboard with 2/3 less power. Like you pointed
out a jet drive would work better, especially with the step chine
being a perfect placement for the pump inlet. I appreciate all of
your concerns and suggestions and I don't pass them off as illogical
but I do have some background experience that makes me positive it
can be done safely. Someday soon I hope.
Thank You All,
John
--- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
>
> John
> I don't think anyone is challenging your ability to put a large
inboard engine in a Sneakeasy. What is in debate are the results of
such an installation. Although the Sneakeasy's hull may seem
compatible to that application, it is not. For no other reason you
will be unable to turn the craft and high-speeds. However, that will
be of little consequence because the boat will selfdestruct before
posing that threat. What others in this group (much more informed
than me) are trying to convey is that the high torque of the engine
cannot be transmitted to the propeller in an efficient manner,
therefore the boat itself will "torque" and twist because the boat
does not have an equivalent mass ratio to the engine. In airplanes it
is called the "P" factor. When large propeller driven fighter plane
takes off to the torque is so great that the plane wants to rotate
instead of the propeller. This problem was solved by using a variable
pitched propeller. You did not have that luxury in the Sneakeasy. Hot
rods burn rubber when the horsepower is not transmitted to the
ground. In your proposed boat the energy is transmitted to the wood
and fiberglass. The harmonic vibrations resulting from the engine
installed in a fragile craft will result in the breakdown of the long
molecule fibers in both the wood and the fiberglass challenging the
integrity of the entire boat.
> Yes they did laugh at Christopher Columbus. But they didn't laugh
at Christopher Columbus Smith, the founder of Chris Craft. He too had
an overwhelming desire to put large engines in boats, but in his
designs the boat was designed first to except the punishment of large
engines.
> Should your experiment fail, you won't need to worry about selling
the boat. That responsibility will fall to your next of kin.
> Having thoroughly trashed another man's dream, and in the spirit of
this group I offer another suggestion. If speed in a Sneakeasy is
your goal, look to jet power. In that scenario the power and thrust
is transmitted more uniformly and although low in torque, the high-
end speeds might be impressive. Before you look at the big 455
blocks , I would consider two large jet ski units. Controlled
independently this setup could improve steering control that high-
speeds, if you consider 40mph high-speed. Why do I get the feeling
I've created another monster?
> Good Luck
> CCG
In a message dated 9/11/02 2:13:29 PM Central Daylight Time,
normblitch@...writes:
"Snow Leopard" had been built up to that time. Page 172 has a rather cleverly
posed photograph of a model of the design built by Payson. I don't know of
any other images.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
normblitch@...writes:
> someone will have to help me on Snow Leopard...my PB collection is in boxesIf the text of my 1994 paperback edition of BWAOM can be relied upon, no
> at the moment...
>
"Snow Leopard" had been built up to that time. Page 172 has a rather cleverly
posed photograph of a model of the design built by Payson. I don't know of
any other images.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It's the hard chine that catches. A flat bottom boat doesn't bank into
turns. It will turn flat and even lean with the turn. Picture a car in a
high speed without a banked corner. It'll skid and spin out but if a tire
catches something, over it goes. Unless the water is mirror smooth, every
wave, ripple, or wake is the same as a curb to a tire.
Ribs would help some but only if they where full length and then only some.
The bottom needs to be Veed or rounded to allow the hull to bank.
Jeff
turns. It will turn flat and even lean with the turn. Picture a car in a
high speed without a banked corner. It'll skid and spin out but if a tire
catches something, over it goes. Unless the water is mirror smooth, every
wave, ripple, or wake is the same as a curb to a tire.
Ribs would help some but only if they where full length and then only some.
The bottom needs to be Veed or rounded to allow the hull to bank.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chance Curtis" <sneakeasy2002@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: long Phallic offshore power boats
>
> Years ago I had a very fast wooden boat called a Speedliner similar to
ken Bassett's Rascal. The boat had ribs on the bottom at the stern forward
to about 4 ft. Would these help the Sneakeasy at high speeds?
> CCG
> Jeff Blunck wrote:At those speeds a flat bottom sharpie like the Sneakeasy
and my Wyoming will
> trip and tumble. Hitting another big wake at an angle or turn too sharp
and
> start skidding, the hard chine catches and trips the boat.
>
> Bolger says the 10,000 lbs. Wyo is safe to turn at will up to about 20
knots
> before she starts skidding and could trip.
>
> Jeff
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Cupp" <caj@...>
> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:25 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: long Phallic offshore power boats
>
>
> > All of this disbelief and I have a 10ga shotgun but rarely ever use
> > it, I prefer my 20ga but I reload my own high base shells. So you
> > have a very efficient hull design, why not use it? I think about all
> > the low budget hot rods I have built and I know I can buy a used
> > rotary for less than any new 35 hp outboard of any brand. I know
> > that the Sneakeasy can and has been built unlike other Bolger
> > drawings or unbuilt designs.
> >
> > I know that some things are possible but not probable. People told
> > Chris Columbus he would fall off the earth. Besides if it is a huge
> > mistake I can always put an old outboard on and hang a for sale sign
> > on it.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In bolger@y..., "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
> > > Make the propellor very large, add wings and a tail, plus a little
> > > aero engineering and you might have a safe vehicle.
> > > --- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I think you could put a 250hp engine in a Sneakeasy. I also think
> > I
> > > could pound a 12 ga shotgun shell into a 20ga shotgun and shot it,
> > > both having the same results.
> > > snipve 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
> > - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
> 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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! - We Remember
> 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
>
> [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
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
--- In bolger@y..., "Norm Blitch" <normblitch@m...> wrote:
A scan of Payson model at:
http://www.hallman.org/bolger/SnowLeopard/
> ...someone will have to help me on Snow Leopard...Ch. 34 BWAOM
A scan of Payson model at:
http://www.hallman.org/bolger/SnowLeopard/
Years ago I had a very fast wooden boat called a Speedliner similar to ken Bassett's Rascal. The boat had ribs on the bottom at the stern forward to about 4 ft. Would these help the Sneakeasy at high speeds?
CCG
Jeff Blunck wrote:At those speeds a flat bottom sharpie like the Sneakeasy and my Wyoming will
trip and tumble. Hitting another big wake at an angle or turn too sharp and
start skidding, the hard chine catches and trips the boat.
Bolger says the 10,000 lbs. Wyo is safe to turn at will up to about 20 knots
before she starts skidding and could trip.
Jeff
CCG
Jeff Blunck wrote:At those speeds a flat bottom sharpie like the Sneakeasy and my Wyoming will
trip and tumble. Hitting another big wake at an angle or turn too sharp and
start skidding, the hard chine catches and trips the boat.
Bolger says the 10,000 lbs. Wyo is safe to turn at will up to about 20 knots
before she starts skidding and could trip.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cupp" <caj@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:25 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: long Phallic offshore power boats
> All of this disbelief and I have a 10ga shotgun but rarely ever use
> it, I prefer my 20ga but I reload my own high base shells. So you
> have a very efficient hull design, why not use it? I think about all
> the low budget hot rods I have built and I know I can buy a used
> rotary for less than any new 35 hp outboard of any brand. I know
> that the Sneakeasy can and has been built unlike other Bolger
> drawings or unbuilt designs.
>
> I know that some things are possible but not probable. People told
> Chris Columbus he would fall off the earth. Besides if it is a huge
> mistake I can always put an old outboard on and hang a for sale sign
> on it.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
> > Make the propellor very large, add wings and a tail, plus a little
> > aero engineering and you might have a safe vehicle.
> > --- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you could put a 250hp engine in a Sneakeasy. I also think
> I
> > could pound a 12 ga shotgun shell into a 20ga shotgun and shot it,
> > both having the same results.
> > snipve 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
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Go to www.google.com and make an IMAGE search under "Baby Bootlegger"....several color and B/W images are found...someone will have to help me on Snow Leopard...my PB collection is in boxes at the moment...
Norm
Norm
----- Original Message -----
From: Chance Curtis
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: long Phallic offshore power boats
Where can i see pics of the Baby Bootlegger and the Snow Leopard ?
Thanks
CCG
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
At those speeds a flat bottom sharpie like the Sneakeasy and my Wyoming will
trip and tumble. Hitting another big wake at an angle or turn too sharp and
start skidding, the hard chine catches and trips the boat.
Bolger says the 10,000 lbs. Wyo is safe to turn at will up to about 20 knots
before she starts skidding and could trip.
Jeff
trip and tumble. Hitting another big wake at an angle or turn too sharp and
start skidding, the hard chine catches and trips the boat.
Bolger says the 10,000 lbs. Wyo is safe to turn at will up to about 20 knots
before she starts skidding and could trip.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cupp" <caj@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:25 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: long Phallic offshore power boats
> All of this disbelief and I have a 10ga shotgun but rarely ever use
> it, I prefer my 20ga but I reload my own high base shells. So you
> have a very efficient hull design, why not use it? I think about all
> the low budget hot rods I have built and I know I can buy a used
> rotary for less than any new 35 hp outboard of any brand. I know
> that the Sneakeasy can and has been built unlike other Bolger
> drawings or unbuilt designs.
>
> I know that some things are possible but not probable. People told
> Chris Columbus he would fall off the earth. Besides if it is a huge
> mistake I can always put an old outboard on and hang a for sale sign
> on it.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
> > Make the propellor very large, add wings and a tail, plus a little
> > aero engineering and you might have a safe vehicle.
> > --- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you could put a 250hp engine in a Sneakeasy. I also think
> I
> > could pound a 12 ga shotgun shell into a 20ga shotgun and shot it,
> > both having the same results.
> > snipve 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
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject tohttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
John
I don't think anyone is challenging your ability to put a large inboard engine in a Sneakeasy. What is in debate are the results of such an installation. Although the Sneakeasy's hull may seem compatible to that application, it is not. For no other reason you will be unable to turn the craft and high-speeds. However, that will be of little consequence because the boat will selfdestruct before posing that threat. What others in this group (much more informed than me) are trying to convey is that the high torque of the engine cannot be transmitted to the propeller in an efficient manner, therefore the boat itself will "torque" and twist because the boat does not have an equivalent mass ratio to the engine. In airplanes it is called the "P" factor. When large propeller driven fighter plane takes off to the torque is so great that the plane wants to rotate instead of the propeller. This problem was solved by using a variable pitched propeller. You did not have that luxury in the Sneakeasy. Hot rods burn rubber when the horsepower is not transmitted to the ground. In your proposed boat the energy is transmitted to the wood and fiberglass. The harmonic vibrations resulting from the engine installed in a fragile craft will result in the breakdown of the long molecule fibers in both the wood and the fiberglass challenging the integrity of the entire boat.
Yes they did laugh at Christopher Columbus. But they didn't laugh at Christopher Columbus Smith, the founder of Chris Craft. He too had an overwhelming desire to put large engines in boats, but in his designs the boat was designed first to except the punishment of large engines.
Should your experiment fail, you won't need to worry about selling the boat. That responsibility will fall to your next of kin.
Having thoroughly trashed another man's dream, and in the spirit of this group I offer another suggestion. If speed in a Sneakeasy is your goal, look to jet power. In that scenario the power and thrust is transmitted more uniformly and although low in torque, the high-end speeds might be impressive. Before you look at the big 455 blocks , I would consider two large jet ski units. Controlled independently this setup could improve steering control that high-speeds, if you consider 40mph high-speed. Why do I get the feeling I've created another monster?
Good Luck
CCG
John Cupp wrote: All of this disbelief and I have a 10ga shotgun but rarely ever use
it, I prefer my 20ga but I reload my own high base shells. So you
have a very efficient hull design, why not use it? I think about all
the low budget hot rods I have built and I know I can buy a used
rotary for less than any new 35 hp outboard of any brand. I know
that the Sneakeasy can and has been built unlike other Bolger
drawings or unbuilt designs.
I know that some things are possible but not probable. People told
Chris Columbus he would fall off the earth. Besides if it is a huge
mistake I can always put an old outboard on and hang a for sale sign
on it.
John
I don't think anyone is challenging your ability to put a large inboard engine in a Sneakeasy. What is in debate are the results of such an installation. Although the Sneakeasy's hull may seem compatible to that application, it is not. For no other reason you will be unable to turn the craft and high-speeds. However, that will be of little consequence because the boat will selfdestruct before posing that threat. What others in this group (much more informed than me) are trying to convey is that the high torque of the engine cannot be transmitted to the propeller in an efficient manner, therefore the boat itself will "torque" and twist because the boat does not have an equivalent mass ratio to the engine. In airplanes it is called the "P" factor. When large propeller driven fighter plane takes off to the torque is so great that the plane wants to rotate instead of the propeller. This problem was solved by using a variable pitched propeller. You did not have that luxury in the Sneakeasy. Hot rods burn rubber when the horsepower is not transmitted to the ground. In your proposed boat the energy is transmitted to the wood and fiberglass. The harmonic vibrations resulting from the engine installed in a fragile craft will result in the breakdown of the long molecule fibers in both the wood and the fiberglass challenging the integrity of the entire boat.
Yes they did laugh at Christopher Columbus. But they didn't laugh at Christopher Columbus Smith, the founder of Chris Craft. He too had an overwhelming desire to put large engines in boats, but in his designs the boat was designed first to except the punishment of large engines.
Should your experiment fail, you won't need to worry about selling the boat. That responsibility will fall to your next of kin.
Having thoroughly trashed another man's dream, and in the spirit of this group I offer another suggestion. If speed in a Sneakeasy is your goal, look to jet power. In that scenario the power and thrust is transmitted more uniformly and although low in torque, the high-end speeds might be impressive. Before you look at the big 455 blocks , I would consider two large jet ski units. Controlled independently this setup could improve steering control that high-speeds, if you consider 40mph high-speed. Why do I get the feeling I've created another monster?
Good Luck
CCG
John Cupp wrote: All of this disbelief and I have a 10ga shotgun but rarely ever use
it, I prefer my 20ga but I reload my own high base shells. So you
have a very efficient hull design, why not use it? I think about all
the low budget hot rods I have built and I know I can buy a used
rotary for less than any new 35 hp outboard of any brand. I know
that the Sneakeasy can and has been built unlike other Bolger
drawings or unbuilt designs.
I know that some things are possible but not probable. People told
Chris Columbus he would fall off the earth. Besides if it is a huge
mistake I can always put an old outboard on and hang a for sale sign
on it.
John
--- In bolger@y..., "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
> Make the propellor very large, add wings and a tail, plus a little
> aero engineering and you might have a safe vehicle.
> --- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I think you could put a 250hp engine in a Sneakeasy. I also think
I
> could pound a 12 ga shotgun shell into a 20ga shotgun and shot it,
> both having the same results.
> snipve been removed]
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Where can i see pics of the Baby Bootlegger and the Snow Leopard ?
Thanks
CCG
wmrpage@...wrote:In a message dated 9/10/02 1:09:55 AM Central Daylight Time,caj@...
writes:
for relatively low power and low speeds with moderate outboard power. A high
powered inboard, regardless of the power/weight ratio of its engine, needs an
entirely different construction scheme - i.e. long, stiff stringers to
provide engine beds, transmit rudder and thrust loads AND handle the enormous
bending loads that the hull would experience if driven at the speeds that
high power will make possible. With all the internal structure that this
would require, there would be little point in using "Instant Boat"-type,
shell-first construction. I think that one would be much better off
constructing the framing first and sheathing later, in some more-or-less
conventional manner. (e.g. like Glen-L's earlier designs) "Baby
Bootlegger"'s "streamlined" topsides would be a good candidate for strip
planking. The underpinnings would need to be pretty heavy duty stuff.
While "Sneakeasy" may provide an aesthetic objective, I don't think it is a
realistic starting point for construction from an engineering point of view.
A point I tried to make is that the hp/weight ratios of modern V-8 engines
such is that it is not necessary, or perhaps even desirable, to scale down
the size of those '20's Gold Cup boats, if one intends to use modern V-8
power. Power that was exotic in their day is commonplace today.
Bolger's "Snow Leopard", (BWAOM, #34) at 28' X 7' is quite as elegant in its
own way as as "Baby Bootlegger" and probably more useful, given the greater
passenger accomodation. The chapter shows sections that would enable one to
build a vertical-lift model, as Payson did, but gives no construction
details. It would appear that it uses a V-drive, to put the engine as far aft
as it is, but this is speculation on my part. The added passenger
accomodation compared to "Baby Bootlegger" and is contemporaries is the
result of the aft engine placement. Bolger predicts 40 mph @ 180 bhp and 70
mph @ 350 bhp. I think that this boat would be a much better place to start
thinking about a high powered "cigarette"-style boat than "Sneakeasy".
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks
CCG
wmrpage@...wrote:In a message dated 9/10/02 1:09:55 AM Central Daylight Time,caj@...
writes:
> I would stillI think this is just a bad idea. Sneakeasy has light scantlings, is designed
> like to stuff a rotary in a Sneakeasy.
for relatively low power and low speeds with moderate outboard power. A high
powered inboard, regardless of the power/weight ratio of its engine, needs an
entirely different construction scheme - i.e. long, stiff stringers to
provide engine beds, transmit rudder and thrust loads AND handle the enormous
bending loads that the hull would experience if driven at the speeds that
high power will make possible. With all the internal structure that this
would require, there would be little point in using "Instant Boat"-type,
shell-first construction. I think that one would be much better off
constructing the framing first and sheathing later, in some more-or-less
conventional manner. (e.g. like Glen-L's earlier designs) "Baby
Bootlegger"'s "streamlined" topsides would be a good candidate for strip
planking. The underpinnings would need to be pretty heavy duty stuff.
While "Sneakeasy" may provide an aesthetic objective, I don't think it is a
realistic starting point for construction from an engineering point of view.
A point I tried to make is that the hp/weight ratios of modern V-8 engines
such is that it is not necessary, or perhaps even desirable, to scale down
the size of those '20's Gold Cup boats, if one intends to use modern V-8
power. Power that was exotic in their day is commonplace today.
Bolger's "Snow Leopard", (BWAOM, #34) at 28' X 7' is quite as elegant in its
own way as as "Baby Bootlegger" and probably more useful, given the greater
passenger accomodation. The chapter shows sections that would enable one to
build a vertical-lift model, as Payson did, but gives no construction
details. It would appear that it uses a V-drive, to put the engine as far aft
as it is, but this is speculation on my part. The added passenger
accomodation compared to "Baby Bootlegger" and is contemporaries is the
result of the aft engine placement. Bolger predicts 40 mph @ 180 bhp and 70
mph @ 350 bhp. I think that this boat would be a much better place to start
thinking about a high powered "cigarette"-style boat than "Sneakeasy".
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
One of the sources of the disbelief is that Bolger writes that if you
try to turn a hull like this at high speed it will try to flip over.
I recently read the essay about Wyoming (2X Sneakeasy hull).
He wrote that he thought it would run into trouble starting at 25mph
or so, as I recall. Efficiency usually is around some kind of design
point, not for all permutations and conditions. My bicycle is very
efficient but I wouldn't hang a 750cc motor on it!
You can't always hang an outboard on it and sell it if you've
destroyed the boat or yourself.
I have been in a Sneakeasy. It is a very nice SMALL boat that happens
to be long. It's also lightly built.
If you want to soak up power, use a hull that can take it! There are
plenty. Look in the Glen-L catalog or Clark Craft or something.
try to turn a hull like this at high speed it will try to flip over.
I recently read the essay about Wyoming (2X Sneakeasy hull).
He wrote that he thought it would run into trouble starting at 25mph
or so, as I recall. Efficiency usually is around some kind of design
point, not for all permutations and conditions. My bicycle is very
efficient but I wouldn't hang a 750cc motor on it!
You can't always hang an outboard on it and sell it if you've
destroyed the boat or yourself.
I have been in a Sneakeasy. It is a very nice SMALL boat that happens
to be long. It's also lightly built.
If you want to soak up power, use a hull that can take it! There are
plenty. Look in the Glen-L catalog or Clark Craft or something.
--- In bolger@y..., "John Cupp" <caj@k...> wrote:
> All of this disbelief and I have a 10ga shotgun but rarely ever
use
> it, I prefer my 20ga but I reload my own high base shells. So you
> have a very efficient hull design, why not use it? I think about
all
> the low budget hot rods I have built and I know I can buy a used
> rotary for less than any new 35 hp outboard of any brand. I know
> that the Sneakeasy can and has been built unlike other Bolger
> drawings or unbuilt designs.
>
> I know that some things are possible but not probable. People told
> Chris Columbus he would fall off the earth. Besides if it is a huge
> mistake I can always put an old outboard on and hang a for sale sign
> on it.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In bolger@y..., "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
> > Make the propellor very large, add wings and a tail, plus a little
> > aero engineering and you might have a safe vehicle.
> > --- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you could put a 250hp engine in a Sneakeasy. I also
think
> I
> > could pound a 12 ga shotgun shell into a 20ga shotgun and shot
it,
> > both having the same results.
> > snipve been removed]
All of this disbelief and I have a 10ga shotgun but rarely ever use
it, I prefer my 20ga but I reload my own high base shells. So you
have a very efficient hull design, why not use it? I think about all
the low budget hot rods I have built and I know I can buy a used
rotary for less than any new 35 hp outboard of any brand. I know
that the Sneakeasy can and has been built unlike other Bolger
drawings or unbuilt designs.
I know that some things are possible but not probable. People told
Chris Columbus he would fall off the earth. Besides if it is a huge
mistake I can always put an old outboard on and hang a for sale sign
on it.
John
it, I prefer my 20ga but I reload my own high base shells. So you
have a very efficient hull design, why not use it? I think about all
the low budget hot rods I have built and I know I can buy a used
rotary for less than any new 35 hp outboard of any brand. I know
that the Sneakeasy can and has been built unlike other Bolger
drawings or unbuilt designs.
I know that some things are possible but not probable. People told
Chris Columbus he would fall off the earth. Besides if it is a huge
mistake I can always put an old outboard on and hang a for sale sign
on it.
John
--- In bolger@y..., "Lincoln Ross" <lincolnr@r...> wrote:
> Make the propellor very large, add wings and a tail, plus a little
> aero engineering and you might have a safe vehicle.
> --- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I think you could put a 250hp engine in a Sneakeasy. I also think
I
> could pound a 12 ga shotgun shell into a 20ga shotgun and shot it,
> both having the same results.
> snipve been removed]
In a message dated 9/10/02 1:09:55 AM Central Daylight Time,caj@...
writes:
for relatively low power and low speeds with moderate outboard power. A high
powered inboard, regardless of the power/weight ratio of its engine, needs an
entirely different construction scheme - i.e. long, stiff stringers to
provide engine beds, transmit rudder and thrust loads AND handle the enormous
bending loads that the hull would experience if driven at the speeds that
high power will make possible. With all the internal structure that this
would require, there would be little point in using "Instant Boat"-type,
shell-first construction. I think that one would be much better off
constructing the framing first and sheathing later, in some more-or-less
conventional manner. (e.g. like Glen-L's earlier designs) "Baby
Bootlegger"'s "streamlined" topsides would be a good candidate for strip
planking. The underpinnings would need to be pretty heavy duty stuff.
While "Sneakeasy" may provide an aesthetic objective, I don't think it is a
realistic starting point for construction from an engineering point of view.
A point I tried to make is that the hp/weight ratios of modern V-8 engines
such is that it is not necessary, or perhaps even desirable, to scale down
the size of those '20's Gold Cup boats, if one intends to use modern V-8
power. Power that was exotic in their day is commonplace today.
Bolger's "Snow Leopard", (BWAOM, #34) at 28' X 7' is quite as elegant in its
own way as as "Baby Bootlegger" and probably more useful, given the greater
passenger accomodation. The chapter shows sections that would enable one to
build a vertical-lift model, as Payson did, but gives no construction
details. It would appear that it uses a V-drive, to put the engine as far aft
as it is, but this is speculation on my part. The added passenger
accomodation compared to "Baby Bootlegger" and is contemporaries is the
result of the aft engine placement. Bolger predicts 40 mph @ 180 bhp and 70
mph @ 350 bhp. I think that this boat would be a much better place to start
thinking about a high powered "cigarette"-style boat than "Sneakeasy".
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
writes:
> I would stillI think this is just a bad idea. Sneakeasy has light scantlings, is designed
> like to stuff a rotary in a Sneakeasy.
for relatively low power and low speeds with moderate outboard power. A high
powered inboard, regardless of the power/weight ratio of its engine, needs an
entirely different construction scheme - i.e. long, stiff stringers to
provide engine beds, transmit rudder and thrust loads AND handle the enormous
bending loads that the hull would experience if driven at the speeds that
high power will make possible. With all the internal structure that this
would require, there would be little point in using "Instant Boat"-type,
shell-first construction. I think that one would be much better off
constructing the framing first and sheathing later, in some more-or-less
conventional manner. (e.g. like Glen-L's earlier designs) "Baby
Bootlegger"'s "streamlined" topsides would be a good candidate for strip
planking. The underpinnings would need to be pretty heavy duty stuff.
While "Sneakeasy" may provide an aesthetic objective, I don't think it is a
realistic starting point for construction from an engineering point of view.
A point I tried to make is that the hp/weight ratios of modern V-8 engines
such is that it is not necessary, or perhaps even desirable, to scale down
the size of those '20's Gold Cup boats, if one intends to use modern V-8
power. Power that was exotic in their day is commonplace today.
Bolger's "Snow Leopard", (BWAOM, #34) at 28' X 7' is quite as elegant in its
own way as as "Baby Bootlegger" and probably more useful, given the greater
passenger accomodation. The chapter shows sections that would enable one to
build a vertical-lift model, as Payson did, but gives no construction
details. It would appear that it uses a V-drive, to put the engine as far aft
as it is, but this is speculation on my part. The added passenger
accomodation compared to "Baby Bootlegger" and is contemporaries is the
result of the aft engine placement. Bolger predicts 40 mph @ 180 bhp and 70
mph @ 350 bhp. I think that this boat would be a much better place to start
thinking about a high powered "cigarette"-style boat than "Sneakeasy".
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Make the propellor very large, add wings and a tail, plus a little
aero engineering and you might have a safe vehicle.
aero engineering and you might have a safe vehicle.
--- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
>
> I think you could put a 250hp engine in a Sneakeasy. I also think I
could pound a 12 ga shotgun shell into a 20ga shotgun and shot it,
both having the same results.
snipve been removed]
Ya, me too. Though, I'd want a 25hp with remote steering...
----- Original Message -----
From: "brucehallman" <brucehallman@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: long Phallic offshore power boats
> --- In bolger@y..., "pauldayau" <wattleweedooseeds@b...> wrote:
>
> > ...to VIPER as a bolgeresque power sharpie.
> > bolger drew her lines in one of his books .
> > Long skinny boxy hull ,
> > built for ocean racing with a 10hp
>
> I don't know Viper, but was just dreaming about Slicer, ref: Chapter
> 19 in BWAOM. 29 feet x 5'2" and powered by a 9.9 hp outboard.
>
> PCB: "[a 14' skiff] with a 15' faring - literally a cutwater - added
> to her bow...she will slice cleanly through any chop short enough for
> her to bridge over two or three crests."
>
> 12 knots predicted speed with a 9.9 outboard! Planked with sheet
> plywood, and judging from the photo, one was actually built.
>
> Once again, I WANT ONE!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
--- In bolger@y..., "pauldayau" <wattleweedooseeds@b...> wrote:
19 in BWAOM. 29 feet x 5'2" and powered by a 9.9 hp outboard.
PCB: "[a 14' skiff] with a 15' faring - literally a cutwater - added
to her bow...she will slice cleanly through any chop short enough for
her to bridge over two or three crests."
12 knots predicted speed with a 9.9 outboard! Planked with sheet
plywood, and judging from the photo, one was actually built.
Once again, I WANT ONE!
> ...to VIPER as a bolgeresque power sharpie.I don't know Viper, but was just dreaming about Slicer, ref: Chapter
> bolger drew her lines in one of his books .
> Long skinny boxy hull ,
> built for ocean racing with a 10hp
19 in BWAOM. 29 feet x 5'2" and powered by a 9.9 hp outboard.
PCB: "[a 14' skiff] with a 15' faring - literally a cutwater - added
to her bow...she will slice cleanly through any chop short enough for
her to bridge over two or three crests."
12 knots predicted speed with a 9.9 outboard! Planked with sheet
plywood, and judging from the photo, one was actually built.
Once again, I WANT ONE!
I think you could put a 250hp engine in a Sneakeasy. I also think I could pound a 12 ga shotgun shell into a 20ga shotgun and shot it, both having the same results.
CCG
jmbell1 wrote:I'm not sure why you'd need 250 HP in a Sneakeasy. With that much
power, it'd likely be capable of over 100 mph and be dangerous beyond
all comprehension. You'd need to really beef up the scantlings to
keep it from coming apart at those speeds, and that doesn't even
begin take into account the tripping problem. Sneakeasy should be
plenty fast enough for anybody with a 50-75HP outboard on the
transom, capable of over 45 mph and only slightly less dangerous. (50
mph on the water seems fast to me, anyway...)
My reservations aside, I think there's a better alternative to the
tunnel drive you propose. The big concern with operating the tunnel
drive at higher speeds is that the boat can ingest a lot of air under
the bottom in certain wave conditions and cause the prop to cavitate
badly, with a tremendous loss of effeciency. My outboard flattie
powerboat will under certain conditions at higher speeds get enough
air under the bottom to cavitate. A shallower, faster boat may be
worse. A better solution may be to use a surface piercing propeller.
You'd have the advantage of a shallow drive that is unaffected by
cavitation, as well as much lower drag at speed compared to
conventional prop and rudder or an outboard lower unit. The reduced
drag would also allow you to use less horsepower for a given speed.
JB
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
CCG
jmbell1 wrote:I'm not sure why you'd need 250 HP in a Sneakeasy. With that much
power, it'd likely be capable of over 100 mph and be dangerous beyond
all comprehension. You'd need to really beef up the scantlings to
keep it from coming apart at those speeds, and that doesn't even
begin take into account the tripping problem. Sneakeasy should be
plenty fast enough for anybody with a 50-75HP outboard on the
transom, capable of over 45 mph and only slightly less dangerous. (50
mph on the water seems fast to me, anyway...)
My reservations aside, I think there's a better alternative to the
tunnel drive you propose. The big concern with operating the tunnel
drive at higher speeds is that the boat can ingest a lot of air under
the bottom in certain wave conditions and cause the prop to cavitate
badly, with a tremendous loss of effeciency. My outboard flattie
powerboat will under certain conditions at higher speeds get enough
air under the bottom to cavitate. A shallower, faster boat may be
worse. A better solution may be to use a surface piercing propeller.
You'd have the advantage of a shallow drive that is unaffected by
cavitation, as well as much lower drag at speed compared to
conventional prop and rudder or an outboard lower unit. The reduced
drag would also allow you to use less horsepower for a given speed.
JB
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
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 to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm not sure why you'd need 250 HP in a Sneakeasy. With that much
power, it'd likely be capable of over 100 mph and be dangerous beyond
all comprehension. You'd need to really beef up the scantlings to
keep it from coming apart at those speeds, and that doesn't even
begin take into account the tripping problem. Sneakeasy should be
plenty fast enough for anybody with a 50-75HP outboard on the
transom, capable of over 45 mph and only slightly less dangerous. (50
mph on the water seems fast to me, anyway...)
My reservations aside, I think there's a better alternative to the
tunnel drive you propose. The big concern with operating the tunnel
drive at higher speeds is that the boat can ingest a lot of air under
the bottom in certain wave conditions and cause the prop to cavitate
badly, with a tremendous loss of effeciency. My outboard flattie
powerboat will under certain conditions at higher speeds get enough
air under the bottom to cavitate. A shallower, faster boat may be
worse. A better solution may be to use a surface piercing propeller.
You'd have the advantage of a shallow drive that is unaffected by
cavitation, as well as much lower drag at speed compared to
conventional prop and rudder or an outboard lower unit. The reduced
drag would also allow you to use less horsepower for a given speed.
JB
power, it'd likely be capable of over 100 mph and be dangerous beyond
all comprehension. You'd need to really beef up the scantlings to
keep it from coming apart at those speeds, and that doesn't even
begin take into account the tripping problem. Sneakeasy should be
plenty fast enough for anybody with a 50-75HP outboard on the
transom, capable of over 45 mph and only slightly less dangerous. (50
mph on the water seems fast to me, anyway...)
My reservations aside, I think there's a better alternative to the
tunnel drive you propose. The big concern with operating the tunnel
drive at higher speeds is that the boat can ingest a lot of air under
the bottom in certain wave conditions and cause the prop to cavitate
badly, with a tremendous loss of effeciency. My outboard flattie
powerboat will under certain conditions at higher speeds get enough
air under the bottom to cavitate. A shallower, faster boat may be
worse. A better solution may be to use a surface piercing propeller.
You'd have the advantage of a shallow drive that is unaffected by
cavitation, as well as much lower drag at speed compared to
conventional prop and rudder or an outboard lower unit. The reduced
drag would also allow you to use less horsepower for a given speed.
JB
Bill, those ex-Mazda RX7 engines weigh in at about 290lbs and put
out about 280 hp with a turbo. They can be pumped up to well over 300
hp and weigh much less than a small block chevy. A new company has
just come out with a 250 hp rotary diesel motor. Who ever heard of a
250 hp diesel that weighs a little over 300 pounds? I would still
like to stuff a rotary in a Sneakeasy. I would make the angle shallow
and place a tunnel eight feet from the stern with the prop near the
stern and the addition of a rudder. A small skeg under amidships
would help stabilize the boat. The tunnel will help with the thrust
force at high speed, without it the boat could become unstable
without another counter rotating propeller to balance the torque.
The only other thing I would do is extend the boats length to about
34 feet with the step bow. A long skinny rocket with a 20's look.
http://www.boating-industry.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=32829
John
out about 280 hp with a turbo. They can be pumped up to well over 300
hp and weigh much less than a small block chevy. A new company has
just come out with a 250 hp rotary diesel motor. Who ever heard of a
250 hp diesel that weighs a little over 300 pounds? I would still
like to stuff a rotary in a Sneakeasy. I would make the angle shallow
and place a tunnel eight feet from the stern with the prop near the
stern and the addition of a rudder. A small skeg under amidships
would help stabilize the boat. The tunnel will help with the thrust
force at high speed, without it the boat could become unstable
without another counter rotating propeller to balance the torque.
The only other thing I would do is extend the boats length to about
34 feet with the step bow. A long skinny rocket with a 20's look.
http://www.boating-industry.com/news.asp?mode=4&N_ID=32829
John
--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 9/9/02 6:29:28 AM Central Daylight Time,
> wattleweedooseeds@b... writes:
>
>
> > Has any one given a thought to VIPER as a bolgeresque power
sharpie.
> > bolger drew her lines in one of his books . Long skinny boxy
hull ,
> > built for ocean racing with a 10hp ?
>
> Viper is #8 in "30 Odd Boats". The article was intended, I think,
as more of
> a piece of homage to Albert Hickman than anything else. It's a good
read, and
> good to learn of Hickman's originality. However, while 3'8" X 20'2"
is long
> and narrow, an 18 mph, one occupant boat doesn't strike me as
anyone's notion
> of a "cigarette" boat. Neither the original nor Bolger's adaptation
would be
> considered an ocean racing boat by any stretch of the imagination,
at least
> by modern standards. I doubt if it would be wise to try to use the
design as
> a basis for a V-8 powered "Baby Bootlegger" simulacrum.
>
> (Actually, according to Fostle, "Baby Bootlegger"'s engine only put
out 220
> horsepower at 450 lbs. No need to scale down the design for anyone
looking
> for a home for a reasonably healthy small-block Chevy!)
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In a message dated 9/9/02 6:29:28 AM Central Daylight Time,
wattleweedooseeds@...writes:
a piece of homage to Albert Hickman than anything else. It's a good read, and
good to learn of Hickman's originality. However, while 3'8" X 20'2" is long
and narrow, an 18 mph, one occupant boat doesn't strike me as anyone's notion
of a "cigarette" boat. Neither the original nor Bolger's adaptation would be
considered an ocean racing boat by any stretch of the imagination, at least
by modern standards. I doubt if it would be wise to try to use the design as
a basis for a V-8 powered "Baby Bootlegger" simulacrum.
(Actually, according to Fostle, "Baby Bootlegger"'s engine only put out 220
horsepower at 450 lbs. No need to scale down the design for anyone looking
for a home for a reasonably healthy small-block Chevy!)
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
wattleweedooseeds@...writes:
> Has any one given a thought to VIPER as a bolgeresque power sharpie.Viper is #8 in "30 Odd Boats". The article was intended, I think, as more of
> bolger drew her lines in one of his books . Long skinny boxy hull ,
> built for ocean racing with a 10hp ?
a piece of homage to Albert Hickman than anything else. It's a good read, and
good to learn of Hickman's originality. However, while 3'8" X 20'2" is long
and narrow, an 18 mph, one occupant boat doesn't strike me as anyone's notion
of a "cigarette" boat. Neither the original nor Bolger's adaptation would be
considered an ocean racing boat by any stretch of the imagination, at least
by modern standards. I doubt if it would be wise to try to use the design as
a basis for a V-8 powered "Baby Bootlegger" simulacrum.
(Actually, according to Fostle, "Baby Bootlegger"'s engine only put out 220
horsepower at 450 lbs. No need to scale down the design for anyone looking
for a home for a reasonably healthy small-block Chevy!)
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]