Re: [bolger] Re: Powering Cabin Clam Skiff
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, Mark A. wrote:
leg.
Sakari Aaltonen
>He must have been talking about a much smaller boat, or pulling someone's
> > But in a chop, say, the flat bottom pounds badly.
> Bolger says to, "Tame the pounding" by heeling the boat a little. Have you ever tried
> that, or is the boat too heavy?
leg.
> >There is quite a lot of traffic in my area. Not just other powerboats; 30,000-ton passengerYes - that's the reason for the expensive engine.
> > ferries, too.
> Must be nice to have 40 hp to scurry out of the way.
Sakari Aaltonen
On Sun, 16 Mar 2003, vicskiff wrote:
that I'm reluctant to offer opinions - because they will not be based
on experience.
Yahoo does put me off, and I haven't visited for a long time (I get
messages by email.) I did send a photo to Duckworks last year.
generate a wake. It's not huge and there is no rooster tail, but it's
a wake all right. On the other hand, I think the wake, to a degree,
depends on the height and angle or trim of the engine. I haven't
experimented with the height - the cavitation plate is level with the
bottom. The engine has electric trim, so I have played a bit with that.
However, just until the boat felt more or less level. The 200lbs
four-stroke engine is right at the weight limit.
A person with more powerboat experience might very well be able to
minimize the wake... Could he or she make it disappear? I have no
idea.
Sakari Aaltonen
> Sakari, I didn't mean to put anyone off by using the term "consideredI was by no means put off. Rather, my boating experience is so minimal
> opinion". If I worded that badly, I apologize. I was away from this
> group for a long while and so I'm no longer familiar with who's
> participating these days -- otherwise I would have known who to ask
> about things CCS: You. (And I'd guess that would be you and your boat
> in the Photos section, right?)
that I'm reluctant to offer opinions - because they will not be based
on experience.
Yahoo does put me off, and I haven't visited for a long time (I get
messages by email.) I did send a photo to Duckworks last year.
> Yes, I strongly suspected that 10 h.p. wouldn't get Cabin Clam SkiffThere, you see - "from your experience"? But all right... My CCS does
> up on to plane. Next question: From your experience, how does CCS
> perform at the upper end of displacement speeds? The straight lines
> aft lead me to think quite a bit of wake might well be generated
> (accompanied by a great sucking sound :-0 ) whereas something more
> like Tennessee would tuck the water back in behind it nicely without
> leaving as much disturbance. Would this be right?
generate a wake. It's not huge and there is no rooster tail, but it's
a wake all right. On the other hand, I think the wake, to a degree,
depends on the height and angle or trim of the engine. I haven't
experimented with the height - the cavitation plate is level with the
bottom. The engine has electric trim, so I have played a bit with that.
However, just until the boat felt more or less level. The 200lbs
four-stroke engine is right at the weight limit.
A person with more powerboat experience might very well be able to
minimize the wake... Could he or she make it disappear? I have no
idea.
Sakari Aaltonen
> But in a chop, say, the flat bottom pounds badly.Bolger says to, "Tame the pounding" by heeling the boat a little. Have you ever tried
that, or is the boat too heavy?
>There is quite a lot of traffic in my area. Not just other powerboats; 30,000-ton passengerMust be nice to have 40 hp to scurry out of the way.
> ferries, too.
> The CCS has no such threshold. It just goesThis is reported for all the narrow and shoal, Bolger power sharpies. Yours is more like
> faster with more power. The longitudinal trim changes very little.
3.5 than 6 to 1. Interesting it still holds.
Cheers,
Mark
Sakari Aaltonen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Mark A. wrote:
>
> > I know you haven't had your boat completed very long, but can you comment on any
> > experience of how much wind resistance slows you down, requiring extra power to move at
> > displacement or at planing speeds? Also, realistically how much planing does one get to do
> > in a boat like CCS? I'd expect that when the seas are up at all, the need to slow down
> > quite a lot becomes imperative.
>
> Don't know about slowing down - haven't been out in strong winds. I can
> say that if I stop the engine without anchoring, the boat will move
> with the wind quite noticeably.
>
> About planing - my first powerboat, a 11' garvey I built before the CCS,
> has a very distinct planing "threshold" in that when speed increases, the
> nose or bow will gradually rise. sometimes alarmingly so; then, at one
> point, it will drop down. The CCS has no such threshold. It just goes
> faster with more power. The longitudinal trim changes very little.
>
> But in a chop, say, the flat bottom pounds badly. There is also a lot of
> noise (rattle) from the roof of the house, where there is a long sliding
> hatch. The hatch is nice, but for it to move freely, it has to be somewhat
> loose. So, it rattles.
>
> Also, wakes of other powerboats slow you down. There is quite a lot of
> traffic in my area. Not just other powerboats; 30,000-ton passenger
> ferries, too.
>
> Sakari Aaltonen
>
>
> 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/
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Mark A. wrote:
say that if I stop the engine without anchoring, the boat will move
with the wind quite noticeably.
About planing - my first powerboat, a 11' garvey I built before the CCS,
has a very distinct planing "threshold" in that when speed increases, the
nose or bow will gradually rise. sometimes alarmingly so; then, at one
point, it will drop down. The CCS has no such threshold. It just goes
faster with more power. The longitudinal trim changes very little.
But in a chop, say, the flat bottom pounds badly. There is also a lot of
noise (rattle) from the roof of the house, where there is a long sliding
hatch. The hatch is nice, but for it to move freely, it has to be somewhat
loose. So, it rattles.
Also, wakes of other powerboats slow you down. There is quite a lot of
traffic in my area. Not just other powerboats; 30,000-ton passenger
ferries, too.
Sakari Aaltonen
> I know you haven't had your boat completed very long, but can you comment on anyDon't know about slowing down - haven't been out in strong winds. I can
> experience of how much wind resistance slows you down, requiring extra power to move at
> displacement or at planing speeds? Also, realistically how much planing does one get to do
> in a boat like CCS? I'd expect that when the seas are up at all, the need to slow down
> quite a lot becomes imperative.
say that if I stop the engine without anchoring, the boat will move
with the wind quite noticeably.
About planing - my first powerboat, a 11' garvey I built before the CCS,
has a very distinct planing "threshold" in that when speed increases, the
nose or bow will gradually rise. sometimes alarmingly so; then, at one
point, it will drop down. The CCS has no such threshold. It just goes
faster with more power. The longitudinal trim changes very little.
But in a chop, say, the flat bottom pounds badly. There is also a lot of
noise (rattle) from the roof of the house, where there is a long sliding
hatch. The hatch is nice, but for it to move freely, it has to be somewhat
loose. So, it rattles.
Also, wakes of other powerboats slow you down. There is quite a lot of
traffic in my area. Not just other powerboats; 30,000-ton passenger
ferries, too.
Sakari Aaltonen
Sakari, I didn't mean to put anyone off by using the term "considered
opinion". If I worded that badly, I apologize. I was away from this
group for a long while and so I'm no longer familiar with who's
participating these days -- otherwise I would have known who to ask
about things CCS: You. (And I'd guess that would be you and your boat
in the Photos section, right?)
Yes, I strongly suspected that 10 h.p. wouldn't get Cabin Clam Skiff
up on to plane. Next question: From your experience, how does CCS
perform at the upper end of displacement speeds? The straight lines
aft lead me to think quite a bit of wake might well be generated
(accompanied by a great sucking sound :-0 ) whereas something more
like Tennessee would tuck the water back in behind it nicely without
leaving as much disturbance. Would this be right?
John
opinion". If I worded that badly, I apologize. I was away from this
group for a long while and so I'm no longer familiar with who's
participating these days -- otherwise I would have known who to ask
about things CCS: You. (And I'd guess that would be you and your boat
in the Photos section, right?)
Yes, I strongly suspected that 10 h.p. wouldn't get Cabin Clam Skiff
up on to plane. Next question: From your experience, how does CCS
perform at the upper end of displacement speeds? The straight lines
aft lead me to think quite a bit of wake might well be generated
(accompanied by a great sucking sound :-0 ) whereas something more
like Tennessee would tuck the water back in behind it nicely without
leaving as much disturbance. Would this be right?
John
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Sakari Aaltonen <sakari@a...> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Mark A. wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Mark A." wrote:
> >
> > > Sakari? What size motor have you got on yours?
> >
> > 40 hp. His goes, "Plenty fast."
> >
> > Mark
>
> I wasn't going to reply, as I don't have a "considered opinion"
such as
> was asked for. But if my name is mentioned...
>
> I think the total weight of my CCS, with engine, battery, fuel tank,
> and two persons (with very little gear), is about 630kg (1400lbs.)
> So the formula, 1hp/50lbs, says 28hp for planing. A 10hp engine will
> weigh 100-150lbs less, still, I don't think there is any chance of
> planing.
>
> I would say 10hp or less means displacement speed; 25hp or more
> means planing; anything in between doesn't make much sense.
>
>
> Sakari Aaltonen
Sakari,
You comment seems pretty well considered to me.
Looking at Dave Gerr's charts in _Nature of Boats_, a 1500 pound, 16' waterline, 10 hp
boat ought to go 8 knots tops in good conditions. That's an S/L ratio of 2.0, 150 pounds
per horsepower, just under the minimum S/L = 2.5 for planing light, flat bottom boats.
Again though, the CCS superstructure is going to slow it down some in adverse wind. There
are no charts that show how much, ( though it might be a pretty simple calculation to
figure how much force the wind exerts against an area. Lew? ).
I know you haven't had your boat completed very long, but can you comment on any
experience of how much wind resistance slows you down, requiring extra power to move at
displacement or at planing speeds? Also, realistically how much planing does one get to do
in a boat like CCS? I'd expect that when the seas are up at all, the need to slow down
quite a lot becomes imperative.
Mark
Sakari Aaltonen wrote:
You comment seems pretty well considered to me.
Looking at Dave Gerr's charts in _Nature of Boats_, a 1500 pound, 16' waterline, 10 hp
boat ought to go 8 knots tops in good conditions. That's an S/L ratio of 2.0, 150 pounds
per horsepower, just under the minimum S/L = 2.5 for planing light, flat bottom boats.
Again though, the CCS superstructure is going to slow it down some in adverse wind. There
are no charts that show how much, ( though it might be a pretty simple calculation to
figure how much force the wind exerts against an area. Lew? ).
I know you haven't had your boat completed very long, but can you comment on any
experience of how much wind resistance slows you down, requiring extra power to move at
displacement or at planing speeds? Also, realistically how much planing does one get to do
in a boat like CCS? I'd expect that when the seas are up at all, the need to slow down
quite a lot becomes imperative.
Mark
Sakari Aaltonen wrote:
> I wasn't going to reply, as I don't have a "considered opinion" such as
> was asked for. But if my name is mentioned...
>
> I think the total weight of my CCS, with engine, battery, fuel tank,
> and two persons (with very little gear), is about 630kg (1400lbs.)
> So the formula, 1hp/50lbs, says 28hp for planing. A 10hp engine will
> weigh 100-150lbs less, still, I don't think there is any chance of
> planing.
>
> I would say 10hp or less means displacement speed; 25hp or more
> means planing; anything in between doesn't make much sense.
>
> Sakari Aaltonen
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Mark A. wrote:
was asked for. But if my name is mentioned...
I think the total weight of my CCS, with engine, battery, fuel tank,
and two persons (with very little gear), is about 630kg (1400lbs.)
So the formula, 1hp/50lbs, says 28hp for planing. A 10hp engine will
weigh 100-150lbs less, still, I don't think there is any chance of
planing.
I would say 10hp or less means displacement speed; 25hp or more
means planing; anything in between doesn't make much sense.
Sakari Aaltonen
>I wasn't going to reply, as I don't have a "considered opinion" such as
>
> "Mark A." wrote:
>
> > Sakari? What size motor have you got on yours?
>
> 40 hp. His goes, "Plenty fast."
>
> Mark
was asked for. But if my name is mentioned...
I think the total weight of my CCS, with engine, battery, fuel tank,
and two persons (with very little gear), is about 630kg (1400lbs.)
So the formula, 1hp/50lbs, says 28hp for planing. A 10hp engine will
weigh 100-150lbs less, still, I don't think there is any chance of
planing.
I would say 10hp or less means displacement speed; 25hp or more
means planing; anything in between doesn't make much sense.
Sakari Aaltonen
"Mark A." wrote:
Mark
> Sakari? What size motor have you got on yours?40 hp. His goes, "Plenty fast."
Mark
John,
I was just suggesting that the power requirements and results would be comparable, given
the similar underbodies and top hamper.
If you can do without high speed, then it seems to me you ought to be able to get by with
your old motor in any water the CCS is good for.
Sakari? What size motor have you got on yours?
Mark
vicskiff wrote:
I was just suggesting that the power requirements and results would be comparable, given
the similar underbodies and top hamper.
If you can do without high speed, then it seems to me you ought to be able to get by with
your old motor in any water the CCS is good for.
Sakari? What size motor have you got on yours?
Mark
vicskiff wrote:
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, Mark.
>
> I looked at this design (Flat-Bottom Outboard Cruiser) a couple years
> ago, before I bought CCS plans. The shallow draft (negligible, even)
> is good but the boat is a little longer and narrower than is optimum,
> I feel. Besides being an outboard camp-cruiser, my 'perfect boat'
> (yes, I know!) needs to be of moderate length to keep ferry fares
> down when trailering over to the contiguous continent from Vancouver
> Island. Besides, if my recollection is correct, PCB&F have not gone
> beyond the cartoon stage with this boat and my budget precludes
> commissioning original drawings.
>
> John
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "rsmboatbuilder" <isdkelly@c...> wrote:
But, as attractive as Georgia Strait, Strait of Juan de Fuca and
Puget Sound are, those big seas scare me in anything but a bigger
boat than I can manage.
I'd like a boat to trailer to lakes and rivers while touring western
states and provinces in our VW camper van. As I posted a few minutes
ago, my 'perfect boat' needs to be of moderate length to keep ferry
fares down when trailering over to the contiguous continent from
Vancouver Island.
And a flat bottom (or shallow multi-chine) suits me. In my
experience, anything but the shallowest V-hull requires power to
plane. As for dories, they can be too deep-bellied for truly thin
water; read about the one that got stuck and had to be abandoned in
head-water marshes of the Missouri in 'Sailing Uphill'. Skiff America
is certainly worthy of consideration. A somewhat similar design is
Jim Michalak's AF4 -- and it can get by on 10 h.p. quite easily.
Thanks for the input. I certaily appreciate that you took the time.
John
> > I'm not greatly interested in speed.ocean
> Good because this is a very flat bottom which punds in small chop.
>
> > I am drawn to Cabin Clam Skiff
> > by its style and moderate size,
> Yes I love the boat and design but there are many players in this
> arena.
> I was drawn to the very quick build time but taken back by the very
> inappropriate design charicteristics of my local waters (large
> chop)Ian, our immediate waters (Portage Inlet) are relatively protected.
But, as attractive as Georgia Strait, Strait of Juan de Fuca and
Puget Sound are, those big seas scare me in anything but a bigger
boat than I can manage.
I'd like a boat to trailer to lakes and rivers while touring western
states and provinces in our VW camper van. As I posted a few minutes
ago, my 'perfect boat' needs to be of moderate length to keep ferry
fares down when trailering over to the contiguous continent from
Vancouver Island.
And a flat bottom (or shallow multi-chine) suits me. In my
experience, anything but the shallowest V-hull requires power to
plane. As for dories, they can be too deep-bellied for truly thin
water; read about the one that got stuck and had to be abandoned in
head-water marshes of the Missouri in 'Sailing Uphill'. Skiff America
is certainly worthy of consideration. A somewhat similar design is
Jim Michalak's AF4 -- and it can get by on 10 h.p. quite easily.
Thanks for the input. I certaily appreciate that you took the time.
John
Thanks for the suggestion, Mark.
I looked at this design (Flat-Bottom Outboard Cruiser) a couple years
ago, before I bought CCS plans. The shallow draft (negligible, even)
is good but the boat is a little longer and narrower than is optimum,
I feel. Besides being an outboard camp-cruiser, my 'perfect boat'
(yes, I know!) needs to be of moderate length to keep ferry fares
down when trailering over to the contiguous continent from Vancouver
Island. Besides, if my recollection is correct, PCB&F have not gone
beyond the cartoon stage with this boat and my budget precludes
commissioning original drawings.
John
I looked at this design (Flat-Bottom Outboard Cruiser) a couple years
ago, before I bought CCS plans. The shallow draft (negligible, even)
is good but the boat is a little longer and narrower than is optimum,
I feel. Besides being an outboard camp-cruiser, my 'perfect boat'
(yes, I know!) needs to be of moderate length to keep ferry fares
down when trailering over to the contiguous continent from Vancouver
Island. Besides, if my recollection is correct, PCB&F have not gone
beyond the cartoon stage with this boat and my budget precludes
commissioning original drawings.
John
--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Mark A." <marka@h...> wrote:
> John,
>
> It is the windage that's the problem. The faster you go, the more
the house front slows
> you down. Doubtful you can save enough weight to make the
difference.
>
> The straight lines aft are as much to support the motor weight as
to induce fast planing.
>
> Depending on your cruising ground, the old motor might serve you
well enough.
> Here's a similar boat, though longer, that uses a motor in your
range.
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
20Sharpies/cruiser2.gif
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
20Sharpies/cruiser_text_1.gif
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%
20Sharpies/cruiser_text_2.gif
> The text says that 3 hp's enough in dead calm; 5hp is good for 7
or 8 mph; 10 hp is 10 mph.
> Your shorter water line and heavier weight will reduce that some.
Is that enough for you?
>
> On a budget myself,
> Mark
>
> Mark
>
> vicskiff wrote:
> > PCB recommends 35 h.p. for the CCS, with 50 h.p. four-stroke
maximum.
> > The original, non-cabin Clam Skiff is, he says, "FIT FOR 5 H.P.
TO 40
> > H.P. MOTORS -- 30 H.P. SHOWN." I happen to own an older, 10-h.p
Honda
> > and I'd be hard-pressed financially to buy a larger motor. But
the 10-
> > horse might not be adequate to achieve plane, with the straight
lines
> > aft creating unacceptable turbulence and wake.
> >
> > Perhaps reducing weight would be of assistance -- at least in
getting
> > up on a plane. PCB specs 1" bottom and 1/2" topsides for the Clam
> > Skiff. Since it was designed originally as a working boat (and
> > alternatively known as Work Skiff) perhaps these could be reduced
to,
> > say, 3/4" and 3/8" respectively for less-stressful use.
> >
> > I'm not greatly interested in speed. I am drawn to Cabin Clam
Skiff
> > by its style and moderate size, but I'm worried that my 10-horse
is
> > simply the wrong motor and that I should instead consider
> > displacement-type designs such as Stambaugh's Redwing (PCB's
> > Tennessee being overly long for my situation).
> >
> > Considered opinions, please.
> >
> > John
John,
It is the windage that's the problem. The faster you go, the more the house front slows
you down. Doubtful you can save enough weight to make the difference.
The straight lines aft are as much to support the motor weight as to induce fast planing.
Depending on your cruising ground, the old motor might serve you well enough.
Here's a similar boat, though longer, that uses a motor in your range.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%20Sharpies/cruiser2.gif
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%20Sharpies/cruiser_text_1.gif
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%20Sharpies/cruiser_text_2.gif
The text says that 3 hp's enough in dead calm; 5hp is good for 7 or 8 mph; 10 hp is 10 mph.
Your shorter water line and heavier weight will reduce that some. Is that enough for you?
On a budget myself,
Mark
Mark
vicskiff wrote:
It is the windage that's the problem. The faster you go, the more the house front slows
you down. Doubtful you can save enough weight to make the difference.
The straight lines aft are as much to support the motor weight as to induce fast planing.
Depending on your cruising ground, the old motor might serve you well enough.
Here's a similar boat, though longer, that uses a motor in your range.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%20Sharpies/cruiser2.gif
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%20Sharpies/cruiser_text_1.gif
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Power%20Sharpies/cruiser_text_2.gif
The text says that 3 hp's enough in dead calm; 5hp is good for 7 or 8 mph; 10 hp is 10 mph.
Your shorter water line and heavier weight will reduce that some. Is that enough for you?
On a budget myself,
Mark
Mark
vicskiff wrote:
> PCB recommends 35 h.p. for the CCS, with 50 h.p. four-stroke maximum.
> The original, non-cabin Clam Skiff is, he says, "FIT FOR 5 H.P. TO 40
> H.P. MOTORS -- 30 H.P. SHOWN." I happen to own an older, 10-h.p Honda
> and I'd be hard-pressed financially to buy a larger motor. But the 10-
> horse might not be adequate to achieve plane, with the straight lines
> aft creating unacceptable turbulence and wake.
>
> Perhaps reducing weight would be of assistance -- at least in getting
> up on a plane. PCB specs 1" bottom and 1/2" topsides for the Clam
> Skiff. Since it was designed originally as a working boat (and
> alternatively known as Work Skiff) perhaps these could be reduced to,
> say, 3/4" and 3/8" respectively for less-stressful use.
>
> I'm not greatly interested in speed. I am drawn to Cabin Clam Skiff
> by its style and moderate size, but I'm worried that my 10-horse is
> simply the wrong motor and that I should instead consider
> displacement-type designs such as Stambaugh's Redwing (PCB's
> Tennessee being overly long for my situation).
>
> Considered opinions, please.
>
> John
I think a rule of thumb is that it requires 1hp for every 40 lbs to
plane. That's all-inclusive of people and gear. So, I think you are
correct that the CCS will not plane with 10hp. You might compare to
the Indian River Skiff at www.bateau.com which is a flat bottome
skiff of similar size and bottom shape. They give 10hp as minimum
power.
http://www.bateau.com/plans/power/D15.php3
PHV
plane. That's all-inclusive of people and gear. So, I think you are
correct that the CCS will not plane with 10hp. You might compare to
the Indian River Skiff at www.bateau.com which is a flat bottome
skiff of similar size and bottom shape. They give 10hp as minimum
power.
http://www.bateau.com/plans/power/D15.php3
PHV
> I'm not greatly interested in speed.Good because this is a very flat bottom which punds in small chop.
> I am drawn to Cabin Clam SkiffYes I love the boat and design but there are many players in this
> by its style and moderate size,
arena.
I was drawn to the very quick build time but taken back by the very
inappropriate design charicteristics of my local waters (large ocean
chop)
>but I'm worried that my 10-horse isRedwings are great but are also flat bottom shoal draft boats. There
> simply the wrong motor and that I should instead consider
> displacement-type designs such as Stambaugh's Redwing (PCB's
> Tennessee being overly long for my situation).
are many other options but most take more building time because of
the greater V bottom and few have a displacement design and are built
to plane (square transom to keel profile)
Here are some of the boats:
http://stlmusic.com/skiffamerica
http://jboats.weblogger.com/journal
http://www.selway-fisher.com/mc1620.htmsee Rufus 17
http://www.xyz.net/~mgrt
http://by-the-sea.com/archdavisdesign/davis_jiffy22.html
http://www.ecoastlife.com/buildingsc.html
http://www.oldwharf.com/Simmon Sean Skiff and Lumber Yard skiff
There are sooo many of these they all depend on your local waters I
would not guage much by just the outboard you currently own.
Regards,
Ian
Hello, all
I bought plans for Cabin Clam Skiff (PCB #606 II) a while back but
I'm now not certain that I should build it. A prime reason is power
requirement.
PCB recommends 35 h.p. for the CCS, with 50 h.p. four-stroke maximum.
The original, non-cabin Clam Skiff is, he says, "FIT FOR 5 H.P. TO 40
H.P. MOTORS -- 30 H.P. SHOWN." I happen to own an older, 10-h.p Honda
and I'd be hard-pressed financially to buy a larger motor. But the 10-
horse might not be adequate to achieve plane, with the straight lines
aft creating unacceptable turbulence and wake.
Perhaps reducing weight would be of assistance -- at least in getting
up on a plane. PCB specs 1" bottom and 1/2" topsides for the Clam
Skiff. Since it was designed originally as a working boat (and
alternatively known as Work Skiff) perhaps these could be reduced to,
say, 3/4" and 3/8" respectively for less-stressful use.
I'm not greatly interested in speed. I am drawn to Cabin Clam Skiff
by its style and moderate size, but I'm worried that my 10-horse is
simply the wrong motor and that I should instead consider
displacement-type designs such as Stambaugh's Redwing (PCB's
Tennessee being overly long for my situation).
Considered opinions, please.
John
I bought plans for Cabin Clam Skiff (PCB #606 II) a while back but
I'm now not certain that I should build it. A prime reason is power
requirement.
PCB recommends 35 h.p. for the CCS, with 50 h.p. four-stroke maximum.
The original, non-cabin Clam Skiff is, he says, "FIT FOR 5 H.P. TO 40
H.P. MOTORS -- 30 H.P. SHOWN." I happen to own an older, 10-h.p Honda
and I'd be hard-pressed financially to buy a larger motor. But the 10-
horse might not be adequate to achieve plane, with the straight lines
aft creating unacceptable turbulence and wake.
Perhaps reducing weight would be of assistance -- at least in getting
up on a plane. PCB specs 1" bottom and 1/2" topsides for the Clam
Skiff. Since it was designed originally as a working boat (and
alternatively known as Work Skiff) perhaps these could be reduced to,
say, 3/4" and 3/8" respectively for less-stressful use.
I'm not greatly interested in speed. I am drawn to Cabin Clam Skiff
by its style and moderate size, but I'm worried that my 10-horse is
simply the wrong motor and that I should instead consider
displacement-type designs such as Stambaugh's Redwing (PCB's
Tennessee being overly long for my situation).
Considered opinions, please.
John