[bolger] Re: Plan Evolution
Meyer,
There is some legitimacy to what you say. In a former life I was a house carpenter (before I tired of the recurring unemployment), and there is certainly less skill required for most construction these days. Of course, part of the problem is that workmen now expect a living wage for their labor. Can you imagine how much a traditional Victorian house would cost if you had to pay skilled carpenters to fashion all of that custom gingerbread now? Doors and windows are built in air conditioned factories using precision machinery, yet they are cheaper and they work far far better than any site built custom unit of fifty years ago. The people building them make decent money because the construction is labor efficient. I personally believe that any motivated individual with enough time and money could built a Meadowlark, or even a Rozinante, if he (or she) could find the materials. There are books and schools that still teach the skills; all one must do is learn. The main problem is that almost no one wants to buy such boats at a price that would keep the shipright's children fed, or even cover the cost of materials. People want boats (as well as cars, houses, and often family life) cheap and maintenance free. Therefore we have marinas full of clorox bottle boats built of "congealed snot" (L. F. Herreshoff's term for fiberglass). Bolger's designs are great because they're simply to build and they function very well, but also because it won't break your heart and wallet to have to give the one you built away in the end.
Okay, I'll shut up now,
david
There is some legitimacy to what you say. In a former life I was a house carpenter (before I tired of the recurring unemployment), and there is certainly less skill required for most construction these days. Of course, part of the problem is that workmen now expect a living wage for their labor. Can you imagine how much a traditional Victorian house would cost if you had to pay skilled carpenters to fashion all of that custom gingerbread now? Doors and windows are built in air conditioned factories using precision machinery, yet they are cheaper and they work far far better than any site built custom unit of fifty years ago. The people building them make decent money because the construction is labor efficient. I personally believe that any motivated individual with enough time and money could built a Meadowlark, or even a Rozinante, if he (or she) could find the materials. There are books and schools that still teach the skills; all one must do is learn. The main problem is that almost no one wants to buy such boats at a price that would keep the shipright's children fed, or even cover the cost of materials. People want boats (as well as cars, houses, and often family life) cheap and maintenance free. Therefore we have marinas full of clorox bottle boats built of "congealed snot" (L. F. Herreshoff's term for fiberglass). Bolger's designs are great because they're simply to build and they function very well, but also because it won't break your heart and wallet to have to give the one you built away in the end.
Okay, I'll shut up now,
david
Rafael, Meyer wrote:
The evolution is plans is driven by the abilities of builders. The
difficulty in old plans is that designer assumes that the builder is more
self-sufficient.
We live through a period where overall building skills are declining and the
builder are more specialised and less sufficient. Fifty years ago, house
carpenters could and would build their own windows and door-frames etc.
Today, the house carpenter largely assembles pre-manufactured components.
L. Francis Herreshoff describes a boat like Meadow Lark as "simplified to
reduce cost and make the work easier for amateurs". Even putting aside the
issue of where do find all that white oak and yellow pine, I think it would
be a rare amateur with time, money and skill to build at that level of
complexity.
I agree that we are fortunate to have plans from PCB and Michalak that
enable busy people to experience boat building.
--
Meyer
-----Original Message-----
From: T Webber [mailto:tbertw@...]
Sent: Friday, 11 February 2000 1:11
To: bolger@egroups.com; michalak@...
Subject: [bolger] Plan Evolution
List,
>From my limited perspective, we are truly fortunate to have had the
advances in plans and boat building techniques in the last several
years.
In 1994, I ordered Micro Plans and studied them for about 3 full days
to
figute out how the boat was built and how it worked. Since then I have
seriously studied about 20 plans from Michalak, Stevenson and Bolger.
The
plans are straight forward and easy to understand. I have built several
hulls, masts and sewn sail kits together. The process is very straight
forward.
Several weeks ago, I became enamoured with the SanFrancisco Pelican.
It
nicely fills several of my requirements. I ordered the plans and have
been
studying them in my spare time for a week or so. The plans were developed
in the late 50s. William Short has written a 16 page narrative to accompany
the plans. The basic hull is three planks, a bow transom and a stern
transom. How difficult can that be? The size of the hull is smaller
than
Micro - a hull that I have built. It is lighter than a Micro. Yet,
it is
much more difficult to layout and build. Someone (we tend to attribute
it
to Bolger / Payson) developed the instant boat process. Define the
sides,
the bulkheads, cut them out assemble, square, put on the bottom, etc.
Stitch and glu is essentially the same process. Sometimes a strongback
is
used, but usually it is not necessary. In short, what you build is
boat,
almost everything built becomes the finished product. To really appreciate
the Bolger, Payson, Michalak, et al, older plans and concepts must
be
studied. This is certainly not meant as a "slam" against Short, but
an
affirmation of the way thing have evolved to now.
The Pelican starts with a arched strongback and 4 frames. To it is attached
the Keelson and knees for the bow and stern transoms. Next the bow
and
stern transomes (not framed). The bow and stern transomes are then
framed.
No Mention of this in the narrative, it is assumed somewhere.
The chines
are fitted - but not attached - to the strongback frames. They are
fitted
("adjusted" is Short's term) attached to the bow and stern transomes.
Then
the side planking is "temporarily" attached to the frames and the bow
and
stern with 2" overlaps top and bottom. The plans / narrative never
say to
trim along the chine and leave the top untrimmed. They just move directly
into fitting the bottom planking. This is a sample of the whole process.
The deck is supported by 10 knees. I have yet to find any detailed
reference to them in the plans.
Another interesting point is the mast. No dimensions, drawings or specs
are
given for the mast in the drawings. I was about to e-mail Muriel Short
-
the wiidow of the designer and seller of the plans - to question this.
I
then found the dimensions in the "Racing Rules"! I also found that
they can
be laminated, one piece of wood, but not hollow. The spar dimensions
were
found in the same place.
If you are building a Bolger / Michalak creation and you become stuck
or
confused, IT COULD BE WORSE!!!! A LOT WORSE!!!!
I would love to see a Bolgerization or Michalakization of these plans.
Thanks PCB, Dynamite and Jim for the consistant quality plans / building
keys that you generate!!!!!!
Tim - the other one in Houston
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! Rates as low as 2.9%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points,
no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the
credit youdeserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
http://click.egroups.com/1/929/5/_/3457/_/950192163/
-- Check out your group's private Chat room
--http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=bolger&m=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/932/5/_/3457/_/950220012/
-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
--http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=bolger&m=1
Well done James, you woun't be sorry.
Stan, Snow Goose
Stan, Snow Goose
OK, I give up. I will order the plans tomorrow. I am just starting my
first sailboat, Carnells Featherwind modification, but it is evident that I
will be deprived if I don't tackle a Micro!
James Fuller
first sailboat, Carnells Featherwind modification, but it is evident that I
will be deprived if I don't tackle a Micro!
James Fuller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stan Muller" <smuller@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 2:27 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Plan Evolution
> To Tim Webber in Houston,
> Never has anyone, better pointed out the differences in boat
> building, between then and now, as you did in your posting!
> The lofting, strong back, molds, frames, and on and on, was the only
> boat building that I knew. Then one happy day I ran across the Weekender
> plans on the net, along with there step by step demo of one being built,
> and I could not believe my eyes. Luckily I took it one step further and
> found Common Sense Boats, and the Micro and the rest in happy history.
> I second your; "Thanks PCB, Dynamite and Jim for the consistent
> quality plans / building keys that you generate!!!!!!"
> Stan, Snow Goose, In sunny warm middle America; 65 deg. F. in Feb.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! Rates as low as 2.9%
> Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points,
> no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the
> credit you deserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
>http://click.egroups.com/1/930/5/_/3457/_/950217987/
>
> eGroups.com Home:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/
>http://www.egroups.com- Simplifying group communications
>
>
The evolution is plans is driven by the abilities of builders. The
difficulty in old plans is that designer assumes that the builder is more
self-sufficient.
We live through a period where overall building skills are declining and the
builder are more specialised and less sufficient. Fifty years ago, house
carpenters could and would build their own windows and door-frames etc.
Today, the house carpenter largely assembles pre-manufactured components.
L. Francis Herreshoff describes a boat like Meadow Lark as "simplified to
reduce cost and make the work easier for amateurs". Even putting aside the
issue of where do find all that white oak and yellow pine, I think it would
be a rare amateur with time, money and skill to build at that level of
complexity.
I agree that we are fortunate to have plans from PCB and Michalak that
enable busy people to experience boat building.
--
Meyer
-----Original Message-----
From: T Webber [mailto:tbertw@...]
Sent: Friday, 11 February 2000 1:11
To:bolger@egroups.com;michalak@...
Subject: [bolger] Plan Evolution
List,
From my limited perspective, we are truly fortunate to have had the
advances in plans and boat building techniques in the last several years.
In 1994, I ordered Micro Plans and studied them for about 3 full days to
figute out how the boat was built and how it worked. Since then I have
seriously studied about 20 plans from Michalak, Stevenson and Bolger. The
plans are straight forward and easy to understand. I have built several
hulls, masts and sewn sail kits together. The process is very straight
forward.
Several weeks ago, I became enamoured with the SanFrancisco Pelican. It
nicely fills several of my requirements. I ordered the plans and have been
studying them in my spare time for a week or so. The plans were developed
in the late 50s. William Short has written a 16 page narrative to accompany
the plans. The basic hull is three planks, a bow transom and a stern
transom. How difficult can that be? The size of the hull is smaller than
Micro - a hull that I have built. It is lighter than a Micro. Yet, it is
much more difficult to layout and build. Someone (we tend to attribute it
to Bolger / Payson) developed the instant boat process. Define the sides,
the bulkheads, cut them out assemble, square, put on the bottom, etc.
Stitch and glu is essentially the same process. Sometimes a strongback is
used, but usually it is not necessary. In short, what you build is boat,
almost everything built becomes the finished product. To really appreciate
the Bolger, Payson, Michalak, et al, older plans and concepts must be
studied. This is certainly not meant as a "slam" against Short, but an
affirmation of the way thing have evolved to now.
The Pelican starts with a arched strongback and 4 frames. To it is attached
the Keelson and knees for the bow and stern transoms. Next the bow and
stern transomes (not framed). The bow and stern transomes are then framed.
No Mention of this in the narrative, it is assumed somewhere. The chines
are fitted - but not attached - to the strongback frames. They are fitted
("adjusted" is Short's term) attached to the bow and stern transomes. Then
the side planking is "temporarily" attached to the frames and the bow and
stern with 2" overlaps top and bottom. The plans / narrative never say to
trim along the chine and leave the top untrimmed. They just move directly
into fitting the bottom planking. This is a sample of the whole process.
The deck is supported by 10 knees. I have yet to find any detailed
reference to them in the plans.
Another interesting point is the mast. No dimensions, drawings or specs are
given for the mast in the drawings. I was about to e-mail Muriel Short -
the wiidow of the designer and seller of the plans - to question this. I
then found the dimensions in the "Racing Rules"! I also found that they can
be laminated, one piece of wood, but not hollow. The spar dimensions were
found in the same place.
If you are building a Bolger / Michalak creation and you become stuck or
confused, IT COULD BE WORSE!!!! A LOT WORSE!!!!
I would love to see a Bolgerization or Michalakization of these plans.
Thanks PCB, Dynamite and Jim for the consistant quality plans / building
keys that you generate!!!!!!
Tim - the other one in Houston
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! Rates as low as 2.9%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points,
no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the
credit youdeserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
http://click.egroups.com/1/929/5/_/3457/_/950192163/
-- Check out your group's private Chat room
--http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=bolger&m=1
difficulty in old plans is that designer assumes that the builder is more
self-sufficient.
We live through a period where overall building skills are declining and the
builder are more specialised and less sufficient. Fifty years ago, house
carpenters could and would build their own windows and door-frames etc.
Today, the house carpenter largely assembles pre-manufactured components.
L. Francis Herreshoff describes a boat like Meadow Lark as "simplified to
reduce cost and make the work easier for amateurs". Even putting aside the
issue of where do find all that white oak and yellow pine, I think it would
be a rare amateur with time, money and skill to build at that level of
complexity.
I agree that we are fortunate to have plans from PCB and Michalak that
enable busy people to experience boat building.
--
Meyer
-----Original Message-----
From: T Webber [mailto:tbertw@...]
Sent: Friday, 11 February 2000 1:11
To:bolger@egroups.com;michalak@...
Subject: [bolger] Plan Evolution
List,
From my limited perspective, we are truly fortunate to have had the
advances in plans and boat building techniques in the last several years.
In 1994, I ordered Micro Plans and studied them for about 3 full days to
figute out how the boat was built and how it worked. Since then I have
seriously studied about 20 plans from Michalak, Stevenson and Bolger. The
plans are straight forward and easy to understand. I have built several
hulls, masts and sewn sail kits together. The process is very straight
forward.
Several weeks ago, I became enamoured with the SanFrancisco Pelican. It
nicely fills several of my requirements. I ordered the plans and have been
studying them in my spare time for a week or so. The plans were developed
in the late 50s. William Short has written a 16 page narrative to accompany
the plans. The basic hull is three planks, a bow transom and a stern
transom. How difficult can that be? The size of the hull is smaller than
Micro - a hull that I have built. It is lighter than a Micro. Yet, it is
much more difficult to layout and build. Someone (we tend to attribute it
to Bolger / Payson) developed the instant boat process. Define the sides,
the bulkheads, cut them out assemble, square, put on the bottom, etc.
Stitch and glu is essentially the same process. Sometimes a strongback is
used, but usually it is not necessary. In short, what you build is boat,
almost everything built becomes the finished product. To really appreciate
the Bolger, Payson, Michalak, et al, older plans and concepts must be
studied. This is certainly not meant as a "slam" against Short, but an
affirmation of the way thing have evolved to now.
The Pelican starts with a arched strongback and 4 frames. To it is attached
the Keelson and knees for the bow and stern transoms. Next the bow and
stern transomes (not framed). The bow and stern transomes are then framed.
No Mention of this in the narrative, it is assumed somewhere. The chines
are fitted - but not attached - to the strongback frames. They are fitted
("adjusted" is Short's term) attached to the bow and stern transomes. Then
the side planking is "temporarily" attached to the frames and the bow and
stern with 2" overlaps top and bottom. The plans / narrative never say to
trim along the chine and leave the top untrimmed. They just move directly
into fitting the bottom planking. This is a sample of the whole process.
The deck is supported by 10 knees. I have yet to find any detailed
reference to them in the plans.
Another interesting point is the mast. No dimensions, drawings or specs are
given for the mast in the drawings. I was about to e-mail Muriel Short -
the wiidow of the designer and seller of the plans - to question this. I
then found the dimensions in the "Racing Rules"! I also found that they can
be laminated, one piece of wood, but not hollow. The spar dimensions were
found in the same place.
If you are building a Bolger / Michalak creation and you become stuck or
confused, IT COULD BE WORSE!!!! A LOT WORSE!!!!
I would love to see a Bolgerization or Michalakization of these plans.
Thanks PCB, Dynamite and Jim for the consistant quality plans / building
keys that you generate!!!!!!
Tim - the other one in Houston
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! Rates as low as 2.9%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points,
no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the
credit youdeserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
http://click.egroups.com/1/929/5/_/3457/_/950192163/
-- Check out your group's private Chat room
--http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=bolger&m=1
To Tim Webber in Houston,
Never has anyone, better pointed out the differences in boat
building, between then and now, as you did in your posting!
The lofting, strong back, molds, frames, and on and on, was the only
boat building that I knew. Then one happy day I ran across the Weekender
plans on the net, along with there step by step demo of one being built,
and I could not believe my eyes. Luckily I took it one step further and
found Common Sense Boats, and the Micro and the rest in happy history.
I second your; "Thanks PCB, Dynamite and Jim for the consistent
quality plans / building keys that you generate!!!!!!"
Stan, Snow Goose, In sunny warm middle America; 65 deg. F. in Feb.
Never has anyone, better pointed out the differences in boat
building, between then and now, as you did in your posting!
The lofting, strong back, molds, frames, and on and on, was the only
boat building that I knew. Then one happy day I ran across the Weekender
plans on the net, along with there step by step demo of one being built,
and I could not believe my eyes. Luckily I took it one step further and
found Common Sense Boats, and the Micro and the rest in happy history.
I second your; "Thanks PCB, Dynamite and Jim for the consistent
quality plans / building keys that you generate!!!!!!"
Stan, Snow Goose, In sunny warm middle America; 65 deg. F. in Feb.
> Didn't stich and glue come from the Mirror dinghy? Or did it alreadyI also believe that the Mirror dinghy was the first s&g design that (1)
> exist?
had large numbers of boats built and (2) used modern fiberglass and
resin for the seams. It must have been polyester; it was too early for
epoxy. It was in the early 1950's, I think.
Since then, the idea has been independently reinvented.
However, there is very little completely new in boatbuilding, just
evolution and adaptation. The Norse longboats were stitched, although
not glued. Native
American birchbark canoes were (are?) stitched and glued. Coracles?
With respect to plan evolution, I would say that the original Instant
Boats of Bolger & Payson were different from other plans of their time
with respect to in least three important ways:
1) They were always intended to be built from ordinary lumberyard
stock, not "air-dried, old-growth hardwood."
2) The building method did not require lofting or for the frames to be
set up on a strong back, and it did not require any exotic tools (band
saw, thickness planner, etc.)
3) The total number of pieces of wood to be fitted was much less than
in more traditional designs. For example, the number of parts to Black
Skimmer is about half the number in the Norwalk Island Sharpie 23.
Peter
Tim:
I hope you don't mind, I forwarded your post to Jim Michalak, just in case
he is looking for a project. BTW, How does his "Piccup Pram" compare to the
Pelican?
Chuck Leinweber
Duckworks Magazine
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com
I hope you don't mind, I forwarded your post to Jim Michalak, just in case
he is looking for a project. BTW, How does his "Piccup Pram" compare to the
Pelican?
Chuck Leinweber
Duckworks Magazine
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com
----- Original Message -----
From: T Webber <tbertw@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>; <michalak@...>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 8:11 AM
Subject: [bolger] Plan Evolution
> List,
>
> >From my limited perspective, we are truly fortunate to have had the
> advances in plans and boat building techniques in the last several years.
> In 1994, I ordered Micro Plans and studied them for about 3 full days to
> figute out how the boat was built and how it worked. Since then I have
> seriously studied about 20 plans from Michalak, Stevenson and Bolger. The
> plans are straight forward and easy to understand. I have built several
> hulls, masts and sewn sail kits together. The process is very straight
> forward.
>
> Several weeks ago, I became enamoured with the SanFrancisco Pelican. It
> nicely fills several of my requirements. I ordered the plans and have been
> studying them in my spare time for a week or so. The plans were developed
> in the late 50s. William Short has written a 16 page narrative to
accompany
> the plans. The basic hull is three planks, a bow transom and a stern
> transom. How difficult can that be? The size of the hull is smaller than
> Micro - a hull that I have built. It is lighter than a Micro. Yet, it is
> much more difficult to layout and build. Someone (we tend to attribute it
> to Bolger / Payson) developed the instant boat process. Define the sides,
> the bulkheads, cut them out assemble, square, put on the bottom, etc.
> Stitch and glu is essentially the same process. Sometimes a strongback is
> used, but usually it is not necessary. In short, what you build is boat,
> almost everything built becomes the finished product. To really appreciate
> the Bolger, Payson, Michalak, et al, older plans and concepts must be
> studied. This is certainly not meant as a "slam" against Short, but an
> affirmation of the way thing have evolved to now.
>
> The Pelican starts with a arched strongback and 4 frames. To it is
attached
> the Keelson and knees for the bow and stern transoms. Next the bow and
> stern transomes (not framed). The bow and stern transomes are then framed.
> No Mention of this in the narrative, it is assumed somewhere. The chines
> are fitted - but not attached - to the strongback frames. They are fitted
> ("adjusted" is Short's term) attached to the bow and stern transomes. Then
> the side planking is "temporarily" attached to the frames and the bow and
> stern with 2" overlaps top and bottom. The plans / narrative never say to
> trim along the chine and leave the top untrimmed. They just move directly
> into fitting the bottom planking. This is a sample of the whole process.
> The deck is supported by 10 knees. I have yet to find any detailed
> reference to them in the plans.
>
> Another interesting point is the mast. No dimensions, drawings or specs
are
> given for the mast in the drawings. I was about to e-mail Muriel Short -
> the wiidow of the designer and seller of the plans - to question this. I
> then found the dimensions in the "Racing Rules"! I also found that they
can
> be laminated, one piece of wood, but not hollow. The spar dimensions were
> found in the same place.
>
> If you are building a Bolger / Michalak creation and you become stuck or
> confused, IT COULD BE WORSE!!!! A LOT WORSE!!!!
>
> I would love to see a Bolgerization or Michalakization of these plans.
>
> Thanks PCB, Dynamite and Jim for the consistant quality plans / building
> keys that you generate!!!!!!
>
> Tim - the other one in Houston
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa! Rates as low as 2.9%
> Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards Points,
> no hidden fees, and much more! Get NextCard today and get the
> credit youdeserve! Apply now! Get your NextCard Visa at:
>http://click.egroups.com/1/929/5/_/3457/_/950192163/
>
> -- Check out your group's private Chat room
> --http://www.egroups.com/ChatPage?listName=bolger&m=1
>
>
t webber <tbert-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2491
exist?
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=2491
>snip Someone (we tend to attribute itDidn't stich and glue come from the Mirror dinghy? Or did it already
> to Bolger / Payson) developed the instant boat process.
exist?
List,
From my limited perspective, we are truly fortunate to have had the
advances in plans and boat building techniques in the last several years.
In 1994, I ordered Micro Plans and studied them for about 3 full days to
figute out how the boat was built and how it worked. Since then I have
seriously studied about 20 plans from Michalak, Stevenson and Bolger. The
plans are straight forward and easy to understand. I have built several
hulls, masts and sewn sail kits together. The process is very straight
forward.
Several weeks ago, I became enamoured with the SanFrancisco Pelican. It
nicely fills several of my requirements. I ordered the plans and have been
studying them in my spare time for a week or so. The plans were developed
in the late 50s. William Short has written a 16 page narrative to accompany
the plans. The basic hull is three planks, a bow transom and a stern
transom. How difficult can that be? The size of the hull is smaller than
Micro - a hull that I have built. It is lighter than a Micro. Yet, it is
much more difficult to layout and build. Someone (we tend to attribute it
to Bolger / Payson) developed the instant boat process. Define the sides,
the bulkheads, cut them out assemble, square, put on the bottom, etc.
Stitch and glu is essentially the same process. Sometimes a strongback is
used, but usually it is not necessary. In short, what you build is boat,
almost everything built becomes the finished product. To really appreciate
the Bolger, Payson, Michalak, et al, older plans and concepts must be
studied. This is certainly not meant as a "slam" against Short, but an
affirmation of the way thing have evolved to now.
The Pelican starts with a arched strongback and 4 frames. To it is attached
the Keelson and knees for the bow and stern transoms. Next the bow and
stern transomes (not framed). The bow and stern transomes are then framed.
No Mention of this in the narrative, it is assumed somewhere. The chines
are fitted - but not attached - to the strongback frames. They are fitted
("adjusted" is Short's term) attached to the bow and stern transomes. Then
the side planking is "temporarily" attached to the frames and the bow and
stern with 2" overlaps top and bottom. The plans / narrative never say to
trim along the chine and leave the top untrimmed. They just move directly
into fitting the bottom planking. This is a sample of the whole process.
The deck is supported by 10 knees. I have yet to find any detailed
reference to them in the plans.
Another interesting point is the mast. No dimensions, drawings or specs are
given for the mast in the drawings. I was about to e-mail Muriel Short -
the wiidow of the designer and seller of the plans - to question this. I
then found the dimensions in the "Racing Rules"! I also found that they can
be laminated, one piece of wood, but not hollow. The spar dimensions were
found in the same place.
If you are building a Bolger / Michalak creation and you become stuck or
confused, IT COULD BE WORSE!!!! A LOT WORSE!!!!
I would love to see a Bolgerization or Michalakization of these plans.
Thanks PCB, Dynamite and Jim for the consistant quality plans / building
keys that you generate!!!!!!
Tim - the other one in Houston
From my limited perspective, we are truly fortunate to have had the
advances in plans and boat building techniques in the last several years.
In 1994, I ordered Micro Plans and studied them for about 3 full days to
figute out how the boat was built and how it worked. Since then I have
seriously studied about 20 plans from Michalak, Stevenson and Bolger. The
plans are straight forward and easy to understand. I have built several
hulls, masts and sewn sail kits together. The process is very straight
forward.
Several weeks ago, I became enamoured with the SanFrancisco Pelican. It
nicely fills several of my requirements. I ordered the plans and have been
studying them in my spare time for a week or so. The plans were developed
in the late 50s. William Short has written a 16 page narrative to accompany
the plans. The basic hull is three planks, a bow transom and a stern
transom. How difficult can that be? The size of the hull is smaller than
Micro - a hull that I have built. It is lighter than a Micro. Yet, it is
much more difficult to layout and build. Someone (we tend to attribute it
to Bolger / Payson) developed the instant boat process. Define the sides,
the bulkheads, cut them out assemble, square, put on the bottom, etc.
Stitch and glu is essentially the same process. Sometimes a strongback is
used, but usually it is not necessary. In short, what you build is boat,
almost everything built becomes the finished product. To really appreciate
the Bolger, Payson, Michalak, et al, older plans and concepts must be
studied. This is certainly not meant as a "slam" against Short, but an
affirmation of the way thing have evolved to now.
The Pelican starts with a arched strongback and 4 frames. To it is attached
the Keelson and knees for the bow and stern transoms. Next the bow and
stern transomes (not framed). The bow and stern transomes are then framed.
No Mention of this in the narrative, it is assumed somewhere. The chines
are fitted - but not attached - to the strongback frames. They are fitted
("adjusted" is Short's term) attached to the bow and stern transomes. Then
the side planking is "temporarily" attached to the frames and the bow and
stern with 2" overlaps top and bottom. The plans / narrative never say to
trim along the chine and leave the top untrimmed. They just move directly
into fitting the bottom planking. This is a sample of the whole process.
The deck is supported by 10 knees. I have yet to find any detailed
reference to them in the plans.
Another interesting point is the mast. No dimensions, drawings or specs are
given for the mast in the drawings. I was about to e-mail Muriel Short -
the wiidow of the designer and seller of the plans - to question this. I
then found the dimensions in the "Racing Rules"! I also found that they can
be laminated, one piece of wood, but not hollow. The spar dimensions were
found in the same place.
If you are building a Bolger / Michalak creation and you become stuck or
confused, IT COULD BE WORSE!!!! A LOT WORSE!!!!
I would love to see a Bolgerization or Michalakization of these plans.
Thanks PCB, Dynamite and Jim for the consistant quality plans / building
keys that you generate!!!!!!
Tim - the other one in Houston