Re: [bolger] Re: Eek
>Waiting for enlightenment,Remember: Kayak, spelled backwards, is kayaK.
>
>Ciao for Niao,
>Bill in MN
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www2.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
In a message dated 5/8/03 10:21:43 PM Central Daylight Time,
proaconstrictor@...writes:
"kayak"? Or is there some small boat type that I am unaware of?
Waiting for enlightenment,
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
proaconstrictor@...writes:
> And as to rocker, on a yak IWhat on earth is a "yak", other than some Asian bovine? Is this slang for a
> would
> >drop the stem and stern to the waterline
"kayak"? Or is there some small boat type that I am unaware of?
Waiting for enlightenment,
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Two sound replies on this one already. All I can add is the
obvious: Trailer for haul out only; trailer for vaccation or other
occasional use; trailer for all uses of the boat. Three very
different propositions.
obvious: Trailer for haul out only; trailer for vaccation or other
occasional use; trailer for all uses of the boat. Three very
different propositions.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "s_paskey" <s_paskey@y...> wrote:
> A very sensible reply. Battle-hardened trailer-sailors routinely
> shlep around some remarkably large and heavy boats, but my Dovekie
is
> about as big as I'd care to wrestle with on a regular basis.
> Chebacco or Birdwatcher would be fine -- anything bigger or heavier
> would not be to my taste.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
>
> > I think it makes sense to trade down still further. Long Micro
has
> > most of the advantages of Martha Jane in a short size, though not
> > really much lighter. If you go to Chebacco, you get light weight,
> > great performance, and beauty. I think you would be as
comfortable
> in
> > a Chebacco as you would in a reduced-size Egret.
> >
> > There is really a lot to be said for Birdwatcher, especially if
you
> > are not interested in big water. Light weight and a lot of
interior
> > room.
> >
> > Of course, if you want interior, then you want Jessie Cooper, but
> no
> > one ever said that was an easy-trailer proposition.
> >
> > Peter
They are both way bigger than the requirement here. If one's use
made the original version of MJ acceptable, I would prefer her, or
for that mater
Chebacco. I would just hate to be hauling around all that extra
weight and ballast too.
made the original version of MJ acceptable, I would prefer her, or
for that mater
Chebacco. I would just hate to be hauling around all that extra
weight and ballast too.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "s_paskey" <s_paskey@y...> wrote:
> As I recall, Bolger has described the Skimmer as being "perilously
> close" to a good trailer boat, and cited the mast as the main
problem
> (but not the only one). Martha Jane was developed, at Elrow
Larowe's
> request, as a more easily trailered version. Myself, I'd rather
have
> Black Skimmer with a lugsail on a tabernacle for the main, rather
> than Martha Jane -- why mess with a good thing more than absolutely
> necessary?
>
> Steve Paskey
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@y...>
wrote:
> >
> > Wasn't the _raison d'etre_ for the Martha Jane the fact that the
> > Black Skimmer *doesn't* trailer alright because of the long mast
> > required for her leg-o-mutton main?
> >
> > --
> > Susan Davis <futabachan@y...>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "kayak_user" <srelt@i...> wrote:
I found a racing sharpie of about 6-1 in chappelle. I found a new
Haven also in chapelle that was a bit fatter, what wih all the non-
working boat length.
and a 5:1 for the sheer. Some, however, were broader. Phil B
changes a bit.
There was basicaly the boat you describe in a cover story in WB. You
can knock some of the rocker out if you aren't planing on as variable
a load as the working boat.
I'm a paranoid trailer sailer myself, so I am very sympathetic.
Basicaly in a post 911 and market meltdown reinsurance market, it is
amazing one can stil trailer a boat at all.
Best all around small cruiser, level sailing and so forth is a very
small catamran, like these, a little hard on the eyes:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~rhturner/
to have simmilar curve of areas, and minimize wetted sruface area.
> Which should be spelled Eeek, but then I never was too good at6:1
> spelling. In fact, I didn't learn to spell my name until I was 13.
>
> Now, about the boat: Again, I appreciate all the comments and have
> saved and savored each one repeatedly. Since I don't know much
> about what I am doing, I can toss out all I know about sharpies in
> a few paragraphs, and let you chew on that. Yes, sharpies were of
I found a racing sharpie of about 6-1 in chappelle. I found a new
Haven also in chapelle that was a bit fatter, what wih all the non-
working boat length.
> ratio, especially the New Haven ones. They often had that on theSurely we are talking waterline?
> bottom
and a 5:1 for the sheer. Some, however, were broader. Phil B
> seems to accept the sheer beam as the starting point for his squareto
> sharpies, and he seems to create designs that please a number of
> builders. Conclusion: his way works. Sometimes, as with MJ, he goes
> a 4:1 ratio and still succeeds. That boat could be rowed, but itis
> more boat than I need.Good point, once one starts to look at them as cruisers, the dymamic
changes a bit.
>28'
> An Egret type of sharpie is a possibility. Scaled down from about
> to 23' it would still be safe. Egrets are remarkable for that.They
There was basicaly the boat you describe in a cover story in WB. You
can knock some of the rocker out if you aren't planing on as variable
a load as the working boat.
I'm a paranoid trailer sailer myself, so I am very sympathetic.
Basicaly in a post 911 and market meltdown reinsurance market, it is
amazing one can stil trailer a boat at all.
Best all around small cruiser, level sailing and so forth is a very
small catamran, like these, a little hard on the eyes:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~rhturner/
>would
> > So, hmmmmmmmm. Justa thinking. And as to rocker, on a yak I
> drop the stem and stern to the waterline giving only two or threea
> inches of rocker at the ends for manuverability, more in the
> tradional proportions of yaks/canoes. The middle would be flat as
> pancake.Most seem to have a fair bit of rocker evenly distributed, in order
to have simmilar curve of areas, and minimize wetted sruface area.
>
> Phil
>An Egret type of sharpie is a possibility.I think Chapelle may have drawn some smaller Egret-like sharpies.
Also Gavin Atkin has a mini-Egret design. I'm not sure how short.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www2.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
I agree that the tabernacle and lug is a much more practicle rig for
trailering. If you are going to use it you might as well op for the Martha
Jane which has more interior room also.
Black Skimmer is an earlier Bolger design, and Martha Jane and some of her
cousins represent PCB's solutions to perceived problems in Black Skimmer/
Blackgauntlet II etc.
That being said, if you put up a bunch of pictures of Bolger designs, Black
Skimmer will be near the top in looks. The photo in "Folding Schooner" drew
my eye the first time I read the book in 1976 and still does. She is drop
dead gorgeous, and inspires at least as much lust in my heart as any
Playboy centerfold ever did for Jimmy Carter.
I have always turned to the sleek and racy over the practical. This has
often cost me in my personal life, but its to late to change now. I can
admire the practicle elegance of MJ or the AS series, great boats to take
home to mom, but mom isn't going to see me out there on a Broad reach with
a Black Skimmer.
HJ
From: pvanderwaartpvanderw@...
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 21:21:07 -0000
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: Black Skimmer displacement
you want to take the easy way out and rely on Mr. Bolger's, go with
the solent lug rig with mast in tabernacle. See here for example with
comments:
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/bskimmer.htm
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/.
trailering. If you are going to use it you might as well op for the Martha
Jane which has more interior room also.
Black Skimmer is an earlier Bolger design, and Martha Jane and some of her
cousins represent PCB's solutions to perceived problems in Black Skimmer/
Blackgauntlet II etc.
That being said, if you put up a bunch of pictures of Bolger designs, Black
Skimmer will be near the top in looks. The photo in "Folding Schooner" drew
my eye the first time I read the book in 1976 and still does. She is drop
dead gorgeous, and inspires at least as much lust in my heart as any
Playboy centerfold ever did for Jimmy Carter.
I have always turned to the sleek and racy over the practical. This has
often cost me in my personal life, but its to late to change now. I can
admire the practicle elegance of MJ or the AS series, great boats to take
home to mom, but mom isn't going to see me out there on a Broad reach with
a Black Skimmer.
HJ
From: pvanderwaartpvanderw@...
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 21:21:07 -0000
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Re: Black Skimmer displacement
> The mast will require some creativeIt's always good to do your own creative thinking, of course, but if
> thought.
you want to take the easy way out and rely on Mr. Bolger's, go with
the solent lug rig with mast in tabernacle. See here for example with
comments:
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/bskimmer.htm
Peter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/.
> The mast will require some creativeIt's always good to do your own creative thinking, of course, but if
> thought.
you want to take the easy way out and rely on Mr. Bolger's, go with
the solent lug rig with mast in tabernacle. See here for example with
comments:
http://www.ace.net.au/schooner/bskimmer.htm
Peter
With the live load up front in the towing vehicle, I think that there is no
problem meeting the 3500 lb limit. The mast will require some creative
thought.
HJ
I guess we are looking at
Hull without ballast: 1200lbs
Ballast: 500 lbs
Gear plus live load: 1100lbs
Total nominal displacement: 2800 lbs.
Peter
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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/.
problem meeting the 3500 lb limit. The mast will require some creative
thought.
HJ
I guess we are looking at
Hull without ballast: 1200lbs
Ballast: 500 lbs
Gear plus live load: 1100lbs
Total nominal displacement: 2800 lbs.
Peter
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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/.
As I recall, Bolger has described the Skimmer as being "perilously
close" to a good trailer boat, and cited the mast as the main problem
(but not the only one). Martha Jane was developed, at Elrow Larowe's
request, as a more easily trailered version. Myself, I'd rather have
Black Skimmer with a lugsail on a tabernacle for the main, rather
than Martha Jane -- why mess with a good thing more than absolutely
necessary?
Steve Paskey
close" to a good trailer boat, and cited the mast as the main problem
(but not the only one). Martha Jane was developed, at Elrow Larowe's
request, as a more easily trailered version. Myself, I'd rather have
Black Skimmer with a lugsail on a tabernacle for the main, rather
than Martha Jane -- why mess with a good thing more than absolutely
necessary?
Steve Paskey
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@y...> wrote:
>
> Wasn't the _raison d'etre_ for the Martha Jane the fact that the
> Black Skimmer *doesn't* trailer alright because of the long mast
> required for her leg-o-mutton main?
>
> --
> Susan Davis <futabachan@y...>
> Your talking Black Skimmer, $40 for the plans from Payson, 1200 lbWasn't the _raison d'etre_ for the Martha Jane the fact that the
> empty hull probably 1800 with gear, could trailer alright.
Black Skimmer *doesn't* trailer alright because of the long mast
required for her leg-o-mutton main?
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
I guess we are looking at
Hull without ballast: 1200lbs
Ballast: 500 lbs
Gear plus live load: 1100lbs
Total nominal displacement: 2800 lbs.
Peter
Hull without ballast: 1200lbs
Ballast: 500 lbs
Gear plus live load: 1100lbs
Total nominal displacement: 2800 lbs.
Peter
> Your talking Black Skimmer, $40 for the plans from Payson,I quoted a weight number from memory, so we will discard that. The
> 1200 lb empty
> hull probably 1800 with gear, could trailer alright.
number on the plans in "The Folding Schooner" is 2800 lbs. In the
Martha Jane secion of MWAOM, he says the biggest problem with
trailering Black Skimmer is the 34 1/2 ft mast, notes that the weight
is a problem.
My hitch has a max weight limit of 3500 lbs. I suppose you could get
a Black Skimmer plus trailer under that number. If not, the next
class of hitch is a big step up.
Peter
Your talking Black Skimmer, $40 for the plans from Payson, 1200 lb empty
hull probably 1800 with gear, could trailer alright.
www.instantboats.com
HJ
-----------------
From: kayak_usersrelt@...
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 15:29:31 -0000
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Eek
An Egret type of sharpie is a possibility. Scaled down from about 28'
to 23' it would still be safe. Egrets are remarkable for that. They
aren't very fast, they have a great deal of rocker (about 1' from the
WL) and they are a crossbred with a steep sided Dory. The bottom of
one 23' long would still be wide enough to sleep upon but the sides
might be a little low for anything except lying down. Still, that
isn't all that bad. It seems to me that anything 28' long, like the
original, would be too long to trailer. It would not be hard to drag
most anything down the road, but turning corners in traffic, stopping,
or launching and retrieving might be a bit much for one person working
alone. Any thoughts on that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/.
hull probably 1800 with gear, could trailer alright.
www.instantboats.com
HJ
-----------------
From: kayak_usersrelt@...
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 15:29:31 -0000
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Eek
An Egret type of sharpie is a possibility. Scaled down from about 28'
to 23' it would still be safe. Egrets are remarkable for that. They
aren't very fast, they have a great deal of rocker (about 1' from the
WL) and they are a crossbred with a steep sided Dory. The bottom of
one 23' long would still be wide enough to sleep upon but the sides
might be a little low for anything except lying down. Still, that
isn't all that bad. It seems to me that anything 28' long, like the
original, would be too long to trailer. It would not be hard to drag
most anything down the road, but turning corners in traffic, stopping,
or launching and retrieving might be a bit much for one person working
alone. Any thoughts on that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/.
A very sensible reply. Battle-hardened trailer-sailors routinely
shlep around some remarkably large and heavy boats, but my Dovekie is
about as big as I'd care to wrestle with on a regular basis.
Chebacco or Birdwatcher would be fine -- anything bigger or heavier
would not be to my taste.
shlep around some remarkably large and heavy boats, but my Dovekie is
about as big as I'd care to wrestle with on a regular basis.
Chebacco or Birdwatcher would be fine -- anything bigger or heavier
would not be to my taste.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:
> I think it makes sense to trade down still further. Long Micro has
> most of the advantages of Martha Jane in a short size, though not
> really much lighter. If you go to Chebacco, you get light weight,
> great performance, and beauty. I think you would be as comfortable
in
> a Chebacco as you would in a reduced-size Egret.
>
> There is really a lot to be said for Birdwatcher, especially if you
> are not interested in big water. Light weight and a lot of interior
> room.
>
> Of course, if you want interior, then you want Jessie Cooper, but
no
> one ever said that was an easy-trailer proposition.
>
> Peter
> It seems to me that anything 28' long, like theHaving driven a fair amount with small boat trailers, and some with a
> original, would be too long to trailer. It would not be
> hard to drag most anything down the road, but turning corners
> in traffic, stopping, or launching and retrieving might be
> a bit much for one person working alone. Any thoughts on that?
22', 2250 lb boat on a trailer, I would say that anyone who can learn
to sail can probably learn to do all the driving part. It's mostly a
matter of looking ahead to make sure you don't get into something you
can't get back out of. A heavy boat does require a substantial and
expensive tow car/truck.
Bolger has written that his sharpies, especially Black Skimmer and
Skillygallee, can sail rings around a Egret type and have a better
interior to boot. However, Skimmer is about 5000lbs and the mast is
really too big for most singlehanders. He designed a lug rig for
Skimmer with trailering in mind. Martha Jane was planned as a
development of Black Skimmer for trailering. It is shorter, the spars
are shorter, and the ballast is (designed to be) water. The recent
upgrades for better ultimate stability change the character of the
design somewhat. The Jochems Schooner is another attempt at a biggish
boat with trailering capability, again with water ballast and masts
in tabernacles.
I think it makes sense to trade down still further. Long Micro has
most of the advantages of Martha Jane in a short size, though not
really much lighter. If you go to Chebacco, you get light weight,
great performance, and beauty. I think you would be as comfortable in
a Chebacco as you would in a reduced-size Egret.
There is really a lot to be said for Birdwatcher, especially if you
are not interested in big water. Light weight and a lot of interior
room.
Of course, if you want interior, then you want Jessie Cooper, but no
one ever said that was an easy-trailer proposition.
Peter
Which should be spelled Eeek, but then I never was too good at
spelling. In fact, I didn't learn to spell my name until I was 13.
Now, about the boat: Again, I appreciate all the comments and have
saved and savored each one repeatedly. Since I don't know much
about what I am doing, I can toss out all I know about sharpies in
a few paragraphs, and let you chew on that. Yes, sharpies were of 6:1
ratio, especially the New Haven ones. They often had that on the
bottom and a 5:1 for the sheer. Some, however, were broader. Phil B
seems to accept the sheer beam as the starting point for his square
sharpies, and he seems to create designs that please a number of
builders. Conclusion: his way works. Sometimes, as with MJ, he goes to
a 4:1 ratio and still succeeds. That boat could be rowed, but it is
more boat than I need.
Square boats do have to sit deeply in the water however, to sail well
which is why narrow ones with a deeper rocker are more commen than the
skitish shallow, beamier models such as a Maryland Crabbing Skiff. The
latter are very fast, very shallow hulled, hard to turn (even with
their centerboards down), and therefore require a lot of attention. I
would love to build one, but I am a lazy, slow, old (63)senior
citizen, and would probably get mad if one of my sandwiches got wet
in an upset. So, I am looking for something stable, forgiving, cheap,
and fun. Micro has crossed my mind.
An Egret type of sharpie is a possibility. Scaled down from about 28'
to 23' it would still be safe. Egrets are remarkable for that. They
aren't very fast, they have a great deal of rocker (about 1' from the
WL) and they are a crossbred with a steep sided Dory. The bottom of
one 23' long would still be wide enough to sleep upon but the sides
might be a little low for anything except lying down. Still, that
isn't all that bad. It seems to me that anything 28' long, like the
original, would be too long to trailer. It would not be hard to drag
most anything down the road, but turning corners in traffic, stopping,
or launching and retrieving might be a bit much for one person working
alone. Any thoughts on that?
So, I am back to my historical background--kayaks. The sailing
kayak/canoes ranged up to about 5'6" in the heyday of the sport, and
that on rather short hulls. I do not need to transport my boat on a
train, so short is not a necessity. I do not need the highly raised
stem/sterns of the sharpies since heavy loads are not my goal. I also
do want to sail since I have a great kayak, so sailing the boat is the
end toward which I am trying to reach with paddling being secondary
during calms. I can, of course row which has the advantage of
developing much more power than paddling with either a single or
double paddle. It also has the disadvantage of having a much larger
boat to mess with, more cost, more maintenance, and more weight to
work with. One solution is a frame and skin boat. I love them. And
another is a narrower boat.
The sailing yaks were often around 30". I owned a couple of 32" X 16'
ones which could haul a lot, weighed a lot when carrying them to and
from the water, and they paddled hard for one person. However, a
square yak of 30" would be fairly stable and capable of a low, divided
rig. It is large enough to cart the stores for long trips, and narrow
enough to be paddled although too wide to be comfortable. Contrary to
contemporary thinking, I do not dislike long yaks and I have found
them not nearly so hard to paddle as short, fat ones of the same
volume. I can imagine one at 36" having enough room for PVC pipe
water ballast tanks/fresh water supply tanks P and S and still leaving
room for sleep aboard.
Another option is a very narrow little sucker, 18" X 24' with one or
two outriggers. But they require setting and hauling them every time
the boat is sailed. That's a lot of fiddling, but the fun might be
worth it. At 18" the main hull could still be paddled with ease minus
the outriggers.
So, hmmmmmmmm. Justa thinking. And as to rocker, on a yak I would
drop the stem and stern to the waterline giving only two or three
inches of rocker at the ends for manuverability, more in the
tradional proportions of yaks/canoes. The middle would be flat as a
pancake.
Phil
spelling. In fact, I didn't learn to spell my name until I was 13.
Now, about the boat: Again, I appreciate all the comments and have
saved and savored each one repeatedly. Since I don't know much
about what I am doing, I can toss out all I know about sharpies in
a few paragraphs, and let you chew on that. Yes, sharpies were of 6:1
ratio, especially the New Haven ones. They often had that on the
bottom and a 5:1 for the sheer. Some, however, were broader. Phil B
seems to accept the sheer beam as the starting point for his square
sharpies, and he seems to create designs that please a number of
builders. Conclusion: his way works. Sometimes, as with MJ, he goes to
a 4:1 ratio and still succeeds. That boat could be rowed, but it is
more boat than I need.
Square boats do have to sit deeply in the water however, to sail well
which is why narrow ones with a deeper rocker are more commen than the
skitish shallow, beamier models such as a Maryland Crabbing Skiff. The
latter are very fast, very shallow hulled, hard to turn (even with
their centerboards down), and therefore require a lot of attention. I
would love to build one, but I am a lazy, slow, old (63)senior
citizen, and would probably get mad if one of my sandwiches got wet
in an upset. So, I am looking for something stable, forgiving, cheap,
and fun. Micro has crossed my mind.
An Egret type of sharpie is a possibility. Scaled down from about 28'
to 23' it would still be safe. Egrets are remarkable for that. They
aren't very fast, they have a great deal of rocker (about 1' from the
WL) and they are a crossbred with a steep sided Dory. The bottom of
one 23' long would still be wide enough to sleep upon but the sides
might be a little low for anything except lying down. Still, that
isn't all that bad. It seems to me that anything 28' long, like the
original, would be too long to trailer. It would not be hard to drag
most anything down the road, but turning corners in traffic, stopping,
or launching and retrieving might be a bit much for one person working
alone. Any thoughts on that?
So, I am back to my historical background--kayaks. The sailing
kayak/canoes ranged up to about 5'6" in the heyday of the sport, and
that on rather short hulls. I do not need to transport my boat on a
train, so short is not a necessity. I do not need the highly raised
stem/sterns of the sharpies since heavy loads are not my goal. I also
do want to sail since I have a great kayak, so sailing the boat is the
end toward which I am trying to reach with paddling being secondary
during calms. I can, of course row which has the advantage of
developing much more power than paddling with either a single or
double paddle. It also has the disadvantage of having a much larger
boat to mess with, more cost, more maintenance, and more weight to
work with. One solution is a frame and skin boat. I love them. And
another is a narrower boat.
The sailing yaks were often around 30". I owned a couple of 32" X 16'
ones which could haul a lot, weighed a lot when carrying them to and
from the water, and they paddled hard for one person. However, a
square yak of 30" would be fairly stable and capable of a low, divided
rig. It is large enough to cart the stores for long trips, and narrow
enough to be paddled although too wide to be comfortable. Contrary to
contemporary thinking, I do not dislike long yaks and I have found
them not nearly so hard to paddle as short, fat ones of the same
volume. I can imagine one at 36" having enough room for PVC pipe
water ballast tanks/fresh water supply tanks P and S and still leaving
room for sleep aboard.
Another option is a very narrow little sucker, 18" X 24' with one or
two outriggers. But they require setting and hauling them every time
the boat is sailed. That's a lot of fiddling, but the fun might be
worth it. At 18" the main hull could still be paddled with ease minus
the outriggers.
So, hmmmmmmmm. Justa thinking. And as to rocker, on a yak I would
drop the stem and stern to the waterline giving only two or three
inches of rocker at the ends for manuverability, more in the
tradional proportions of yaks/canoes. The middle would be flat as a
pancake.
Phil
>> A 6:1 sharpie is not unheard-of.I probably mean both <chuckle> but certainly 6:1 sharpie yachts have
>
>Do you mean something sharpie ish, or a historic Oysterboat type?
been built. Birdwatcher is 4:1 and is kinda tubby!
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www2.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, C O'Donnell <dadadata@f...> wrote:
Dovekie period of generation.
would probably prefer some flair, just for accomodations.
> >I don't know. There are a long run of too narrow sharpies, andYour right, it is obviously similar, cat rig, double ender, same
> >that's a little wide for a multi, though his 120 degree multi hull
> >while draggy could be done in this size.
>
> Only conceptually a skinny BW - in general size, I guess I'm saying.
Dovekie period of generation.
>Do you mean something sharpie ish, or a historic Oysterboat type?
>
> A 6:1 sharpie is not unheard-of.
> ---The 24" 23' would be a good basis for a Funky Tri design, though I
would probably prefer some flair, just for accomodations.
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
> proaconstrictor wrote:a
>
> > When scaling up Eeek! to 23' for a directly similar boat, he used
> > 5' foot beam, which in the one example I have read of was eitherRM
> > wise wildly too tender, or suffered from too many mods, hard totell.
>and sail carrying power,
> TD,
> Anhiga's 5' foot beam adds both sprawl room for cabin and cockpit
> yet still produces a pretty lean boat. An extra 25% beam in atwelve foot canoe might be
> crippling;It would be, fortunately it isn't a canoe, but a lumberjack games
rolling log.
in a 23 footer, just an amenity.
>to build the dam thing.
> Mark
>
> PS I think think some day one or the other of us are going to have
Darn right. I was worried for a monment, when you mentioned MJ, I
thought you had seen a different light. I've done my part at 12.5',
over to you. ;0)
I don't see any problen with a 30" wide canoe, 24" wide while comon
enough in a Kayak is rarish in a solo touring canoe. There was the
Galt BJX, There is the freedom splitrock (actualy 26") like a tri
with an above water bulge, and the Winters Barracuda. The BJX was
based on Pro marathon 27/3 specs a notriously tippy series. All of
these are pretty long, a 12 footer with 24" width is a toy. Anyway
Bolger found it iffy with ballast. Obviously neither of these would
be good paddling canoes.
>Is Peero satisfactory as a double paddle boat? Single paddle boat?it works fine double-paddle, though of course it's not fast; it maneuverable.
>Sailboat?
sailing one is great.
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
>I don't know. There are a long run of too narrow sharpies, andOnly conceptually a skinny BW - in general size, I guess I'm saying.
>that's a little wide for a multi, though his 120 degree multi hull
>while draggy could be done in this size.
A 6:1 sharpie is not unheard-of.
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
proaconstrictor wrote:
Anhiga's 5' foot beam adds both sprawl room for cabin and cockpit and sail carrying power,
yet still produces a pretty lean boat. An extra 25% beam in a twelve foot canoe might be
crippling; in a 23 footer, just an amenity.
Mark
PS I think think some day one or the other of us are going to have to build the dam thing.
> When scaling up Eeek! to 23' for a directly similar boat, he used aTD,
> 5' foot beam, which in the one example I have read of was either RM
> wise wildly too tender, or suffered from too many mods, hard to tell.
Anhiga's 5' foot beam adds both sprawl room for cabin and cockpit and sail carrying power,
yet still produces a pretty lean boat. An extra 25% beam in a twelve foot canoe might be
crippling; in a 23 footer, just an amenity.
Mark
PS I think think some day one or the other of us are going to have to build the dam thing.
Is Peero satisfactory as a double paddle boat? Single paddle boat?
Sailboat?
If you were going to draw it out from 1 1/2 panel length to 2 panel
length, you would want to exand the different axes by different
multiples. The vertical you might want to leave unchanged, thus
reducing the rocker in scale. Length axis is blown up about 33%. One
would want to look at panel usage before deciding on the width
multiple but it could range from no change for a canoe up to the 33%
for a Featherwind-type boat.
Peter
Sailboat?
If you were going to draw it out from 1 1/2 panel length to 2 panel
length, you would want to exand the different axes by different
multiples. The vertical you might want to leave unchanged, thus
reducing the rocker in scale. Length axis is blown up about 33%. One
would want to look at panel usage before deciding on the width
multiple but it could range from no change for a canoe up to the 33%
for a Featherwind-type boat.
Peter
I don't know. There are a long run of too narrow sharpies, and
that's a little wide for a multi, though his 120 degree multi hull
while draggy could be done in this size.
When scaling up Eeek! to 23' for a directly similar boat, he used a
5' foot beam, which in the one example I have read of was either RM
wise wildly too tender, or suffered from too many mods, hard to tell.
that's a little wide for a multi, though his 120 degree multi hull
while draggy could be done in this size.
When scaling up Eeek! to 23' for a directly similar boat, he used a
5' foot beam, which in the one example I have read of was either RM
wise wildly too tender, or suffered from too many mods, hard to tell.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, craig o'donnell <dadadata@f...> wrote:
> >Phil,23 by 4 ft isn't crazy
>
> 23x4 feet is a "skinny Birdwatcher"
> --
> Craig O'Donnell
> Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
> <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
> The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
> The Cheap Pages <http://www2.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
> Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese
Junks,
> American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
> Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
> _________________________________
>
> -- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
> -- Macintosh kinda guy
> Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
> _________________________________
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
>Phil,23 by 4 ft isn't crazy23x4 feet is a "skinny Birdwatcher"
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www2.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by friend.ly.net.]
Phil,23 by 4 ft isn't crazy and lends itself to a low sided decked hull with a central sleeping cockpit and wide side decks. It's probably a bit wide for paddling but would sail/row/micro-motor swiftly with good safety in rough [ warm ] water because of the huge reserve buoyancy. I would use this sort of camp cruiser along the Great Barrier Reef here in Oz or maybe the tropical coast of Central America. The ability to keep everything dry,carry huge amounts [by sea kayak standards] of gear and cover lots of ground quickly,make it suitable for serious expeditions in areas where there is no coast guard to rescue[or un-necessarily regulate you]!!! Keep an eye out for crocodiles! Andy
kayak_user <srelt@...> wrote:Thanks for the help, all of you. Mark, you asked if I sought another
paddle boat. To tell the truth, I am of two minds. On the one hand I
have considered a 3' wide single paddle boat primarily for sail, and I
have toyed equally with the concept of the 4' beam rowing version for
a pair of oars, still primarily for sailing. In either case the sides
would be kept low, more like a kayak, but with the length proportional
to the width. I haven't made up my mind, yet, but I am turning over
all the suggestions. I am even considering a 23' X 4' folding model.
Now you know just how crazy I am. It would supplement my 16' kayak.
Phil
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mobile
- Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kayak_user <srelt@...> wrote:Thanks for the help, all of you. Mark, you asked if I sought another
paddle boat. To tell the truth, I am of two minds. On the one hand I
have considered a 3' wide single paddle boat primarily for sail, and I
have toyed equally with the concept of the 4' beam rowing version for
a pair of oars, still primarily for sailing. In either case the sides
would be kept low, more like a kayak, but with the length proportional
to the width. I haven't made up my mind, yet, but I am turning over
all the suggestions. I am even considering a 23' X 4' folding model.
Now you know just how crazy I am. It would supplement my 16' kayak.
Phil
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
- To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mobile
- Check & compose your email via SMS on your Telstra or Vodafone mobile.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks for the help, all of you. Mark, you asked if I sought another
paddle boat. To tell the truth, I am of two minds. On the one hand I
have considered a 3' wide single paddle boat primarily for sail, and I
have toyed equally with the concept of the 4' beam rowing version for
a pair of oars, still primarily for sailing. In either case the sides
would be kept low, more like a kayak, but with the length proportional
to the width. I haven't made up my mind, yet, but I am turning over
all the suggestions. I am even considering a 23' X 4' folding model.
Now you know just how crazy I am. It would supplement my 16' kayak.
Phil
paddle boat. To tell the truth, I am of two minds. On the one hand I
have considered a 3' wide single paddle boat primarily for sail, and I
have toyed equally with the concept of the 4' beam rowing version for
a pair of oars, still primarily for sailing. In either case the sides
would be kept low, more like a kayak, but with the length proportional
to the width. I haven't made up my mind, yet, but I am turning over
all the suggestions. I am even considering a 23' X 4' folding model.
Now you know just how crazy I am. It would supplement my 16' kayak.
Phil