Re: Naval Jelly
Some pix for those without the book...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Navel%20Jelly/
Bill Turnbull wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Navel%20Jelly/
Bill Turnbull wrote:
>
> Folding Schooner, pg 227.
>
> I think it will look great on top of your car.
>
> Bill
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.
Looks to me like the drawing shows 4 stations. The picture shows 6
plus the coxswain.
Bill
Looks to me like the drawing shows 4 stations. The picture shows 6
plus the coxswain.
Bill
On 4/13/05, Bruce Hector <bruce_hector@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bill Turnbull <BillTurnbull@g...>
> wrote: "Folding Schooner, pg 227. "
>
> Thanks Bill,
>
> I don't have my copy here, what's the length and beam?
>
> 8 rowing stations or 7?
>
> Bruce Hector
> Fighting off a cold, or flu, or pneumonia at home, with no ply or epoxy
> in sight. Sheeeezzzz!
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - 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
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bill Turnbull <BillTurnbull@g...>
wrote: "Folding Schooner, pg 227. "
Thanks Bill,
I don't have my copy here, what's the length and beam?
8 rowing stations or 7?
Bruce Hector
Fighting off a cold, or flu, or pneumonia at home, with no ply or epoxy
in sight. Sheeeezzzz!
wrote: "Folding Schooner, pg 227. "
Thanks Bill,
I don't have my copy here, what's the length and beam?
8 rowing stations or 7?
Bruce Hector
Fighting off a cold, or flu, or pneumonia at home, with no ply or epoxy
in sight. Sheeeezzzz!
Folding Schooner, pg 227.
I think it will look great on top of your car.
Bill
I think it will look great on top of your car.
Bill
On 4/13/05, Bruce Hector <bruce_hector@...> wrote:
>
>
> I'm thinking I'll slap a Naval Jelly together for the Cancer Row and
> subsequent rowing with friends fun and games.
>
> Should look pretty cool cartopped on a compact car, what?
>
> Anyone remeber which PB book NJ is in?
>
> Will it swing paired oars, or just singles.
>
> Bruce Hector
> Chomping at the rowing bit to stick a Naval Jelly together in time for
> the 24 April cancer fundraising row. If I recall, the prototype went
> together in a single weekend.
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - 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
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
I'm thinking I'll slap a Naval Jelly together for the Cancer Row and
subsequent rowing with friends fun and games.
Should look pretty cool cartopped on a compact car, what?
Anyone remeber which PB book NJ is in?
Will it swing paired oars, or just singles.
Bruce Hector
Chomping at the rowing bit to stick a Naval Jelly together in time for
the 24 April cancer fundraising row. If I recall, the prototype went
together in a single weekend.
subsequent rowing with friends fun and games.
Should look pretty cool cartopped on a compact car, what?
Anyone remeber which PB book NJ is in?
Will it swing paired oars, or just singles.
Bruce Hector
Chomping at the rowing bit to stick a Naval Jelly together in time for
the 24 April cancer fundraising row. If I recall, the prototype went
together in a single weekend.
On birdsmouth spars, there's a bit by Gil Fitzhugh about adding
strength to a birdsmouth mast in #31. This also describes Fraser
Howell's broken birdsmouth (no reinforcement in that one). Fraser
has built a new one, I don't see an article about it, but the
registry page gives his email asfraser.howell@...
John (O'Neil, I think), a.k.a. jboatguy, also wrote up his experience
with these spars for Chebacco News in # 32.
Both good articles -- these issues are under "old articles" at
Richard S's www.chebacco.com
Jamie Orr
strength to a birdsmouth mast in #31. This also describes Fraser
Howell's broken birdsmouth (no reinforcement in that one). Fraser
has built a new one, I don't see an article about it, but the
registry page gives his email asfraser.howell@...
John (O'Neil, I think), a.k.a. jboatguy, also wrote up his experience
with these spars for Chebacco News in # 32.
Both good articles -- these issues are under "old articles" at
Richard S's www.chebacco.com
Jamie Orr
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@p...> wrote:
> John, last name unknown
>
> jboatguy@c...
>
> Who has been a member of this group, has written an article about
Birdsmouth
> spars for Boatbuilder magazine. I had similar hesitations about a
plug, but
> he seemed to think there was nothing to it. You might email him and
see what
> he has to say, he has been very quick to answer my questions.
>
> HJ
>
>
> On Monday 06 January 2003 07:13 am, you wrote:
> > Thanks proaconstrictor for feedback, and Derek and Bruce, for
advice.....
> >
> > I decided to go with birdsmouth primarily to save weight, since I
will be
> > trailering and have to step the mast every time I want to go
sailing, and
> > at the same time have also commited to the optional 3' taller
mast for
> > better light-air performance. Everything I've read tells me a
hollow
> > birdsmouth mast is the best way that I, with my skills and
equipment, can
> > build a strong mast that will be lighter relative to other
construction
> > techniques.
> >
> > Thanks Derek for encouragement on the tapered reinforcement plug -
I found
> > the concept intimidating but I suppose I'll just have to jump in
and try
> > it, I was trying to skip an obviously important step. No need for
a
> > diagram, I understand the concept, have seen it sketched
someplace before.
> > I do like the idea of doing a separate reinforcement for the foot
and the
> > partners though!
> >
> > Good luck Bruce on your navigator!
> >
No need for a diagram, I
concern about saving money? Would not the weight make it easier to
raise the long arm of the spar?
Also not all my concerns are cost related. You can save money and
build a better spar with strips or splines , and there might be a lot
to be said for orienting a much thicker strip on the side that takes
the biggest beating, which I think is the stern side, judging on the
spar for Anhinga.
> understand the concept, have seen it sketched someplace before. Ido like
> the idea of doing a separate reinforcement for the foot and thepartners
> though!Is the idea there that it saves weight, obviously not in your case a
concern about saving money? Would not the weight make it easier to
raise the long arm of the spar?
Also not all my concerns are cost related. You can save money and
build a better spar with strips or splines , and there might be a lot
to be said for orienting a much thicker strip on the side that takes
the biggest beating, which I think is the stern side, judging on the
spar for Anhinga.
>
> Good luck Bruce on your navigator!
>
> Paul Lefebvre
John, last name unknown
jboatguy@...
Who has been a member of this group, has written an article about Birdsmouth
spars for Boatbuilder magazine. I had similar hesitations about a plug, but
he seemed to think there was nothing to it. You might email him and see what
he has to say, he has been very quick to answer my questions.
HJ
jboatguy@...
Who has been a member of this group, has written an article about Birdsmouth
spars for Boatbuilder magazine. I had similar hesitations about a plug, but
he seemed to think there was nothing to it. You might email him and see what
he has to say, he has been very quick to answer my questions.
HJ
On Monday 06 January 2003 07:13 am, you wrote:
> Thanks proaconstrictor for feedback, and Derek and Bruce, for advice.....
>
> I decided to go with birdsmouth primarily to save weight, since I will be
> trailering and have to step the mast every time I want to go sailing, and
> at the same time have also commited to the optional 3' taller mast for
> better light-air performance. Everything I've read tells me a hollow
> birdsmouth mast is the best way that I, with my skills and equipment, can
> build a strong mast that will be lighter relative to other construction
> techniques.
>
> Thanks Derek for encouragement on the tapered reinforcement plug - I found
> the concept intimidating but I suppose I'll just have to jump in and try
> it, I was trying to skip an obviously important step. No need for a
> diagram, I understand the concept, have seen it sketched someplace before.
> I do like the idea of doing a separate reinforcement for the foot and the
> partners though!
>
> Good luck Bruce on your navigator!
>
Thanks proaconstrictor for feedback, and Derek and Bruce, for advice.....
I decided to go with birdsmouth primarily to save weight, since I will be
trailering and have to step the mast every time I want to go sailing, and at
the same time have also commited to the optional 3' taller mast for better
light-air performance. Everything I've read tells me a hollow birdsmouth
mast is the best way that I, with my skills and equipment, can build a
strong mast that will be lighter relative to other construction techniques.
My spare time and energy, not budget, are the limiting factors in this
project and since I build boats first and foremost for my own enjoyment and
not to save money, if it costs more to buy materials that will be satisfying
to work with, more aesthetically pleasing, and more durable, then to me it's
worth it. While I haven't done any careful calculations, I suspect building
a laminated near-solid lumber mast to plans may be cheaper, but I have no
doubts that it would be far more frustrating and also waste a great deal of
(cheaper) material due to the low-grade lumber available to me locally,
which would force me to waste days cutting out defects and scarfing the good
bits back together before I could even get started laminating. I'd rather
pay more for good wood and enjoy the work, as this is my weekend therapy to
offset the weeks I spend in front of a computer.
Thanks Derek for encouragement on the tapered reinforcement plug - I found
the concept intimidating but I suppose I'll just have to jump in and try it,
I was trying to skip an obviously important step. No need for a diagram, I
understand the concept, have seen it sketched someplace before. I do like
the idea of doing a separate reinforcement for the foot and the partners
though!
Good luck Bruce on your navigator!
Paul Lefebvre
I decided to go with birdsmouth primarily to save weight, since I will be
trailering and have to step the mast every time I want to go sailing, and at
the same time have also commited to the optional 3' taller mast for better
light-air performance. Everything I've read tells me a hollow birdsmouth
mast is the best way that I, with my skills and equipment, can build a
strong mast that will be lighter relative to other construction techniques.
My spare time and energy, not budget, are the limiting factors in this
project and since I build boats first and foremost for my own enjoyment and
not to save money, if it costs more to buy materials that will be satisfying
to work with, more aesthetically pleasing, and more durable, then to me it's
worth it. While I haven't done any careful calculations, I suspect building
a laminated near-solid lumber mast to plans may be cheaper, but I have no
doubts that it would be far more frustrating and also waste a great deal of
(cheaper) material due to the low-grade lumber available to me locally,
which would force me to waste days cutting out defects and scarfing the good
bits back together before I could even get started laminating. I'd rather
pay more for good wood and enjoy the work, as this is my weekend therapy to
offset the weeks I spend in front of a computer.
Thanks Derek for encouragement on the tapered reinforcement plug - I found
the concept intimidating but I suppose I'll just have to jump in and try it,
I was trying to skip an obviously important step. No need for a diagram, I
understand the concept, have seen it sketched someplace before. I do like
the idea of doing a separate reinforcement for the foot and the partners
though!
Good luck Bruce on your navigator!
Paul Lefebvre
> the spars for my Micro.I have also been thinking about
this exactly, for my Micro
Navigator. I don't know if I
have the best solution, but
the solution which I am leaning
towards is as follows:
I can buy 20' Doug Fir 2x6's in my
local Home Depot, they appear
strong and cheap. I plan to
bevel both edges of two of them
using my Skil Saw with a ripping
guide. I will then sandwich two
1 1/2"+ wide pieces in between, leaving
a roughly 1 1/2" square hollow in
the center. This will give me
a crudely hexagonal spar, which I
will then trim some more with an
electric hand plane, and later
with a belt sander.
I plan to not bevel any edges for
about three feet in length right
at the mast partner, leaving the
spar with a square cross section
of 4 1/2" right where it needs
strength the most.
The middle 2/3rds of the Navigator
mast need to be untapered and round
to accomodate the 'jaws' of the boom,
gaff, and battens called for on the
sail plan. Above the top yard, I
figure the mast can be tapered
somewhat, removing mass from where
it would help the most.
I asked PCB the question: is the 4"
untapered schedule 40 aluminum mast
on the plans 'inside' or 'outside'
diameter.
He responded, I quote:
4" outside diameter; 3 1/2" I.D.
or, wood stave fir etc. mast like the
original design, but not tapered. Without
taper, the stave thickness can be reduced
to 1 1/4" or 1 1/8".
I am guessing that after I trim the 1 1/2"
Home Depot lumber to a rounded cross section
I will end up with staves around 1 1/4"
I priced the aluminum tubing and it was
$20 a foot, $400 total. Fir will cost
less than $75, a no-brainer decision,
for me at least.
>Thanks, Chuck.for what it's worth on the above, the side panel of the Light Scooner
>
>Does someone with a copy of Folding Schooner have a chance to check
>if this boat has 2
>foot side panels or are they 16" ?
are 20", not 24"
16" is a marvelous size because you get three piece from two passes
of the skill saw on a piece of plywood. I bet their 16"
YIBB,
David
--
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296
I think this is a bad idea if the idea is mostly practical. I have
been recently dueling with a friend who wanted to do birdsmouth
joints on the spar for a 38' wharram. The only ready supply of Sitka
we had was 8.50 a Bft, and only in 2x6. To cut out the birdmouths
required an extremely wasteful scenario that doubled the cost of the
spar, versus just strip planking the spar. But he had the idea he
wanted the birdmnouth experience. In the end he decided on a
different boat. This might not happen in your case, but there are
three, possibly four sources of waste in the B mouth: One is the
waste in the joints themselves, two is the waste that comes when
cutting to a particular section rather than creating a wood fiber
strip which can work in a multitude of sizes that a BM strip
wouldn't. Third is the fact that a polygon is an inefficient shape
versus the tube. Four may or may not be a problem depending on how
you break out the strips is a taper situation.
Further issue would be the fact that tubes of whatever configuration,
with uniform wall thickness (best case if not the BM case) are good
for keeping a spar in collumn with a stayed spar where loads are in
compression along the tube. This is not the situation with the
micro, it is loaded in a cantilever mode, and mostly in one
direction. Bolger understood this when he built the box section mast
for Anhinga.
I also feel that if you must have an octagon, you should consider
biscuits, and vacuum bagged assembly (shop vac).
For the tappered plug, jam a ball or celophane covered shuttlecock up
the tube, pour in some epoxy bog. When that kicks pour in some more
epoxy, but use a piece of cheap wood like any 2x stock, to take up
most of the space. The butt end of this shouldn't require much
tapering out, since there will be little bending there, but if you
want to, you could jam a lump of styro in there to feather it out.
Anywho... It is getting increasingly hard to make an economic case
for a noble wood spar.
been recently dueling with a friend who wanted to do birdsmouth
joints on the spar for a 38' wharram. The only ready supply of Sitka
we had was 8.50 a Bft, and only in 2x6. To cut out the birdmouths
required an extremely wasteful scenario that doubled the cost of the
spar, versus just strip planking the spar. But he had the idea he
wanted the birdmnouth experience. In the end he decided on a
different boat. This might not happen in your case, but there are
three, possibly four sources of waste in the B mouth: One is the
waste in the joints themselves, two is the waste that comes when
cutting to a particular section rather than creating a wood fiber
strip which can work in a multitude of sizes that a BM strip
wouldn't. Third is the fact that a polygon is an inefficient shape
versus the tube. Four may or may not be a problem depending on how
you break out the strips is a taper situation.
Further issue would be the fact that tubes of whatever configuration,
with uniform wall thickness (best case if not the BM case) are good
for keeping a spar in collumn with a stayed spar where loads are in
compression along the tube. This is not the situation with the
micro, it is loaded in a cantilever mode, and mostly in one
direction. Bolger understood this when he built the box section mast
for Anhinga.
I also feel that if you must have an octagon, you should consider
biscuits, and vacuum bagged assembly (shop vac).
For the tappered plug, jam a ball or celophane covered shuttlecock up
the tube, pour in some epoxy bog. When that kicks pour in some more
epoxy, but use a piece of cheap wood like any 2x stock, to take up
most of the space. The butt end of this shouldn't require much
tapering out, since there will be little bending there, but if you
want to, you could jam a lump of styro in there to feather it out.
Anywho... It is getting increasingly hard to make an economic case
for a noble wood spar.
I'm the silly one to have led you astray, Thomas. But googling on, "Big Bertha Long Dory"
didn't work. Have you got a flag for it?
BTW another boat in this class that could be lightly built is Bolger's 25' 6" x 4' 10"
Special Olympics Bateau.
Mark
"proaconstrictor " wrote:
didn't work. Have you got a flag for it?
BTW another boat in this class that could be lightly built is Bolger's 25' 6" x 4' 10"
Special Olympics Bateau.
Mark
"proaconstrictor " wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> Silly me, but the same point holds, there are like six paddlers in
> action, some of whose belts are showing, so there ain't no way it is
> 24". Looks sort of line a Really Great Big Bertha Long Dorry, so the
> dory plans might be a useful departure. Though someone knows, and
> will doubtless tell us.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Mark A." <marka@h...> wrote:
> > It is actually for oars, so I shouldn't call it a canoe.
Hi Mark,
Silly me, but the same point holds, there are like six paddlers in
action, some of whose belts are showing, so there ain't no way it is
24". Looks sort of line a Really Great Big Bertha Long Dorry, so the
dory plans might be a useful departure. Though someone knows, and
will doubtless tell us.
Silly me, but the same point holds, there are like six paddlers in
action, some of whose belts are showing, so there ain't no way it is
24". Looks sort of line a Really Great Big Bertha Long Dorry, so the
dory plans might be a useful departure. Though someone knows, and
will doubtless tell us.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Mark A." <marka@h...> wrote:
> Hello, Thomas.
>
> It is actually for oars, so I shouldn't call it a canoe.
> But the side planks are probably 16" in order to economize
material and also to have a
> good depth for rowing. Still, looking at the pix Chuck pointed to,
I can't quite tell.
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Navel%20Jelly/
> Especially the one with the crew of 8 going fast.
>
> I'm just musing that the bare hull might weigh only about 200
pounds, yet have spectacular
> sprawl space. Maybe as a switchblade, too.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
> "proaconstrictor " wrote:
>
> > If it is one or the other, then they are sixteen. The
> > average "Canadian canoe" is 10-14 amidships, your 8-10 inches off
the
> > floor, so an additional 14 inches would catch you pretty high up,
and
> > make paddling very difficult.
Hi Paul
A hollow Doug Fir stick will certainly be lighter than a solid one, but as
for being stronger, or lighter than spruce....
http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets/softwood.html
lists the mechanical properties.
Much depends on your chosen scantlings - Jim Michalak has an article on
hollow masts which gives the math. (lookout for URLwrap)
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2000/0201/index.htm#HOLLOW%20SP
ARS
Your process should work just fine as described. The mast for our Micro was
built from DF as you describe. In addition to squaring the outside with
triangular fillets as you describe, I made a tapered inner reinforcement for
the foot, and another for the partners. Very easy to do. I started writing a
description of the process, but it really wants a diagram or two. If it is
of any interest let me know.
Cheers
Derek
A hollow Doug Fir stick will certainly be lighter than a solid one, but as
for being stronger, or lighter than spruce....
http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets/softwood.html
lists the mechanical properties.
Much depends on your chosen scantlings - Jim Michalak has an article on
hollow masts which gives the math. (lookout for URLwrap)
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2000/0201/index.htm#HOLLOW%20SP
ARS
Your process should work just fine as described. The mast for our Micro was
built from DF as you describe. In addition to squaring the outside with
triangular fillets as you describe, I made a tapered inner reinforcement for
the foot, and another for the partners. Very easy to do. I started writing a
description of the process, but it really wants a diagram or two. If it is
of any interest let me know.
Cheers
Derek
Just a few quick questions for those with experience, as I'm about to start
the spars for my Micro. I'm doing the modified rig with 3' taller mast so
want to make sure I have enough strength, but hope to avoid back injury
hefting the mast around each time out, so birdsmouth seems like the way to
go. Also I can't get good spruce, but have access to nice doug-fir decking
in long lengths. I figure I'll rip the staves to width and then 'plane' them
to the correct thickness (based on the proportions published in Woodenboat)
using my tablesaw, then scarf the sections together and rout the V; tapering
will be done last. My first question is, will a properly dimensioned hollow
doug-fir mast be significantly lighter (or at least stronger) than a nearly
solid spruce mast built to plans? It seems like heavy stuff, but I don't
know where to find tables on density, etc. to calculate it. And secondly, in
one of the prior threads it was recommended to use an 8-sided, internally
tapered reenforcement section INSIDE the mast for strengthening the mast
around the step and partner, but this seems like the trickiest part of the
operation, to get that internal section just the right dimensions so it
doesn't impede the assembly of the mast around it, but is thoroughly bonded
to the inside of the final mast. So what I'm wondering is if I can't apply
my reenforcements OUTSIDE in the form of 4 triangular sections to square up
the 8-sided mast at the base. That way I'd have a square fit at the step and
partner, then go to round above that. I've considered using ash or some
other strong, springy wood for these 4 outer segments, but worry that the
differences in properties may cause troubles long-term in the bonding with
the rest of the mast, so perhaps it's better to go with the same material
throughout. I know we've got some good engineering types out there, and at
least one or two micros have been built with birdsmouth spars; anyone care
to chime in here?
thanks,
Paul Lefebvre
the spars for my Micro. I'm doing the modified rig with 3' taller mast so
want to make sure I have enough strength, but hope to avoid back injury
hefting the mast around each time out, so birdsmouth seems like the way to
go. Also I can't get good spruce, but have access to nice doug-fir decking
in long lengths. I figure I'll rip the staves to width and then 'plane' them
to the correct thickness (based on the proportions published in Woodenboat)
using my tablesaw, then scarf the sections together and rout the V; tapering
will be done last. My first question is, will a properly dimensioned hollow
doug-fir mast be significantly lighter (or at least stronger) than a nearly
solid spruce mast built to plans? It seems like heavy stuff, but I don't
know where to find tables on density, etc. to calculate it. And secondly, in
one of the prior threads it was recommended to use an 8-sided, internally
tapered reenforcement section INSIDE the mast for strengthening the mast
around the step and partner, but this seems like the trickiest part of the
operation, to get that internal section just the right dimensions so it
doesn't impede the assembly of the mast around it, but is thoroughly bonded
to the inside of the final mast. So what I'm wondering is if I can't apply
my reenforcements OUTSIDE in the form of 4 triangular sections to square up
the 8-sided mast at the base. That way I'd have a square fit at the step and
partner, then go to round above that. I've considered using ash or some
other strong, springy wood for these 4 outer segments, but worry that the
differences in properties may cause troubles long-term in the bonding with
the rest of the mast, so perhaps it's better to go with the same material
throughout. I know we've got some good engineering types out there, and at
least one or two micros have been built with birdsmouth spars; anyone care
to chime in here?
thanks,
Paul Lefebvre
I think the Naval Jelly well proved the point -- it ain't the hull
that costs when you build a boat.
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296
that costs when you build a boat.
>There used to be a photo available somewhere for this 30 foot,--
>disposable canoe. Not even
>Tim Fatchen lists it now. Any have a clue?
>
>Thanks,
>Mark
>
>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/
C.E.P.
415 W.46th Street
New York, New York 10036
http://www.crumblingempire.com
Mobile (646) 325-8325
Office (212) 247-0296
> It is actually for oars, so I shouldn't call it a canoe.Looking back through the archives turns up the reference to a schooner version.
MAIB V19 #23 Bolger on Design: Naval Jelly Instant Galley.
Oh, boy!
Mark
Hello, Thomas.
It is actually for oars, so I shouldn't call it a canoe.
But the side planks are probably 16" in order to economize material and also to have a
good depth for rowing. Still, looking at the pix Chuck pointed to, I can't quite tell.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Navel%20Jelly/
Especially the one with the crew of 8 going fast.
I'm just musing that the bare hull might weigh only about 200 pounds, yet have spectacular
sprawl space. Maybe as a switchblade, too.
Thanks,
Mark
"proaconstrictor " wrote:
It is actually for oars, so I shouldn't call it a canoe.
But the side planks are probably 16" in order to economize material and also to have a
good depth for rowing. Still, looking at the pix Chuck pointed to, I can't quite tell.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Navel%20Jelly/
Especially the one with the crew of 8 going fast.
I'm just musing that the bare hull might weigh only about 200 pounds, yet have spectacular
sprawl space. Maybe as a switchblade, too.
Thanks,
Mark
"proaconstrictor " wrote:
> If it is one or the other, then they are sixteen. The
> average "Canadian canoe" is 10-14 amidships, your 8-10 inches off the
> floor, so an additional 14 inches would catch you pretty high up, and
> make paddling very difficult.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Mark A." <marka@h...> wrote:
average "Canadian canoe" is 10-14 amidships, your 8-10 inches off the
floor, so an additional 14 inches would catch you pretty high up, and
make paddling very difficult.
> Thanks, Chuck.if this boat has 2
>
> Does someone with a copy of Folding Schooner have a chance to check
> foot side panels or are they 16" ?If it is one or the other, then they are sixteen. The
average "Canadian canoe" is 10-14 amidships, your 8-10 inches off the
floor, so an additional 14 inches would catch you pretty high up, and
make paddling very difficult.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> Chuck Leinweber wrote:
> >
> > Bolger files > look for folder titled "Naval Jelly"
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/
Thanks, Chuck.
Does someone with a copy of Folding Schooner have a chance to check if this boat has 2
foot side panels or are they 16" ?
Mark
Chuck Leinweber wrote:
Does someone with a copy of Folding Schooner have a chance to check if this boat has 2
foot side panels or are they 16" ?
Mark
Chuck Leinweber wrote:
>
> Bolger files > look for folder titled "Naval Jelly"
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/
Bolger files > look for folder titled "Naval Jelly"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/
Chuck
There used to be a photo available somewhere for this 30 foot, disposable canoe. Not even
Tim Fatchen lists it now. Any have a clue?
Thanks,
Mark
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/
Chuck
There used to be a photo available somewhere for this 30 foot, disposable canoe. Not even
Tim Fatchen lists it now. Any have a clue?
Thanks,
Mark
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
There used to be a photo available somewhere for this 30 foot, disposable canoe. Not even
Tim Fatchen lists it now. Any have a clue?
Thanks,
Mark
Tim Fatchen lists it now. Any have a clue?
Thanks,
Mark