[bolger] Re: simple design, symmetry
"c. o'donnell" <dadadat-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=3646
more important on some of these. And the Sprite would plane with 100 lb
crew (yes there was a time....) sitting on rail but not hiked out.
better. A garvey might be almost ideal, particularly if you cut off the
back. Look at the simpler powered planing boats, like Bolger's skimmer.
I think those fancy shapes have a lot to do with displacement
conditions, like sailing close hauled in medium light air, or downwind.
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=3646
>If there isn't too MUCH crew weight. Height and good abs and quads are
>snip
> plane -
> snip
> >>
>
> Given enough wind and enough crew weight, they *can*, I hope is what
> you're saying.
more important on some of these. And the Sprite would plane with 100 lb
crew (yes there was a time....) sitting on rail but not hiked out.
>the
>snip
> Anyway a symmetrical and very simple pointy-ended boat can plane as
> Commodore proved. I imagine a traditional garvey shape could too ifnot
> built too heavily.Actually, a real hard chine boat of simple shape probably planes
>
better. A garvey might be almost ideal, particularly if you cut off the
back. Look at the simpler powered planing boats, like Bolger's skimmer.
I think those fancy shapes have a lot to do with displacement
conditions, like sailing close hauled in medium light air, or downwind.
> That was the real point, Greg -- none of the boats you mention are
> symmetrical and all were expressly designed as "planing racing
> dinghies" rather than being built following a traditional and simple
> skifflike or scowlike model. And no, I don't mean interlake scows.
>
Well, maybe I'm being a little picky. However, I don't want the end
facing forward to be lower to the water so that it spits and splashes
in smaller waves. If I shorten the stern, that might happen.
"c. o'donnell" <dadadat-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=3645
facing forward to be lower to the water so that it spits and splashes
in smaller waves. If I shorten the stern, that might happen.
"c. o'donnell" <dadadat-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=3645
> There is now. Just measured intended storage space and will have tocut
> 2 or 3" off stern. Rats. Will now have to buy 2 pairs of oarlocks
> instead of 1
> >>
>
> I'm a little confused. 3 inches shouldn't make any great difference to
> the symmetry, esp as the part that matters is the waterline and below.
>
You've got to be kidding. Most dinghies/daysailers/centerboarders
plane -
sunfish. dolphins, lasers, 470's, capri 15's, lido 14's, coronoda 15's,
flying scots, scows, lightnings, thistles, finns - as do a lot of
keelboats. "Displacement" dingies are the exception.
you're saying.
If a planing dinghy ain't planing, then it's sailing as a displacement
boat. A very light one, maybe, but that's what it's doing. And since
planing is unmistakable I don't think there's a lot of room for
splitting hairs. I get out a windsurfer if I want to skitter about, but
even a windsurfer in light air is a displacement boat, unless it's a
"sinker" board, in which case I suppose it's the ultimate displacement
boat.
I probably should have clarified by pointing out that 98% of my sailing
is done on the Chesapeake. Other places may actually have more wind
<grin>.
Anyway a symmetrical and very simple pointy-ended boat can plane as the
Commodore proved. I imagine a traditional garvey shape could too if not
built too heavily.
That was the real point, Greg -- none of the boats you mention are
symmetrical and all were expressly designed as "planing racing
dinghies" rather than being built following a traditional and simple
skifflike or scowlike model. And no, I don't mean interlake scows.
plane -
sunfish. dolphins, lasers, 470's, capri 15's, lido 14's, coronoda 15's,
flying scots, scows, lightnings, thistles, finns - as do a lot of
keelboats. "Displacement" dingies are the exception.
>>Given enough wind and enough crew weight, they *can*, I hope is what
you're saying.
If a planing dinghy ain't planing, then it's sailing as a displacement
boat. A very light one, maybe, but that's what it's doing. And since
planing is unmistakable I don't think there's a lot of room for
splitting hairs. I get out a windsurfer if I want to skitter about, but
even a windsurfer in light air is a displacement boat, unless it's a
"sinker" board, in which case I suppose it's the ultimate displacement
boat.
I probably should have clarified by pointing out that 98% of my sailing
is done on the Chesapeake. Other places may actually have more wind
<grin>.
Anyway a symmetrical and very simple pointy-ended boat can plane as the
Commodore proved. I imagine a traditional garvey shape could too if not
built too heavily.
That was the real point, Greg -- none of the boats you mention are
symmetrical and all were expressly designed as "planing racing
dinghies" rather than being built following a traditional and simple
skifflike or scowlike model. And no, I don't mean interlake scows.
There is now. Just measured intended storage space and will have to cut
2 or 3" off stern. Rats. Will now have to buy 2 pairs of oarlocks
instead of 1
the symmetry, esp as the part that matters is the waterline and below.
2 or 3" off stern. Rats. Will now have to buy 2 pairs of oarlocks
instead of 1
>>I'm a little confused. 3 inches shouldn't make any great difference to
the symmetry, esp as the part that matters is the waterline and below.
You've got to be kidding. Most dinghies/daysailers/centerboarders plane -
sunfish. dolphins, lasers, 470's, capri 15's, lido 14's, coronoda 15's,
flying scots, scows, lightnings, thistles, finns - as do a lot of
keelboats. "Displacement" dingies are the exception.
Gregg Carlson
sunfish. dolphins, lasers, 470's, capri 15's, lido 14's, coronoda 15's,
flying scots, scows, lightnings, thistles, finns - as do a lot of
keelboats. "Displacement" dingies are the exception.
Gregg Carlson
>ghc <ghart-@...> wrote:
>
>> Not desirable if you want to plane.
>
>Does he? Do most of us? <chuckle> Out of several hundred sailing bouts
>of various sorts I can count planing (even in a planing racing dinghy
>mind you) on part of one hand. Fun, but not worth worrying too much
>about.
There is now. Just measured intended storage space and will have to cut
2 or 3" off stern. Rats. Will now have to buy 2 pairs of oarlocks
instead of 1 (Double ended boat you can set the oarlocks for solo and
flip around and row the other way with two on board.)
Wish I'd brought the disk with me to work on but will have to give up
and work on work instead. My s.o. says that everyone should be born
with their own money (so as not to be entirely chattel of parental
units), tho I think it's possible I would have blown it all by now or
lost it some other way years ago.
"c. o'donnell" <dadadat-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=3627
2 or 3" off stern. Rats. Will now have to buy 2 pairs of oarlocks
instead of 1 (Double ended boat you can set the oarlocks for solo and
flip around and row the other way with two on board.)
Wish I'd brought the disk with me to work on but will have to give up
and work on work instead. My s.o. says that everyone should be born
with their own money (so as not to be entirely chattel of parental
units), tho I think it's possible I would have blown it all by now or
lost it some other way years ago.
"c. o'donnell" <dadadat-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=3627
> <<
> Any good reason such a boat shouldn't be symmetrical fore and aft if I
> make a point of using a tiller extension when sailing?
> >>
>
> Nope. No reason.
>
"c. o'donnell" <dadadat-@...> wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=3631
too heavy to plane unless we want to use a rig from a much larger boat.
But who knows?
circles around a 50 ft schooner with it. Good thing it was stable,
since there was no bailing and recovery if it went over. Other fond
memory is turning so sharp at such a speed that I slid across hull.
remember correctly, just the Sprite and a Laser (unless you count
Windsurfer). Decidedly more relaxed in the Sprite, must not have been
working on abs and quads before sailing Laser. Keep in mind that the
Sprite is very low tech. 3 shrouds and no vang. Only blocks were for
halyards.
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/bolger/?start=3631
> ghc <ghart-@...> wrote:It would be nice, but a totally unexpected benefit. We'll probably be
>
> > Not desirable if you want to plane.
>
> Does he?
too heavy to plane unless we want to use a rig from a much larger boat.
But who knows?
>Do most of us? <chuckle> Out of several hundred sailing boutsI used to plane my Sprite often. One of my fond memories is sailing
> of various sorts I can count planing (even in a planing racing dinghy
> mind you) on part of one hand. Fun, but not worth worrying too much
> about.
circles around a 50 ft schooner with it. Good thing it was stable,
since there was no bailing and recovery if it went over. Other fond
memory is turning so sharp at such a speed that I slid across hull.
> snipyou
> Of course, the smaller the hull the less likely to plane. But there
> have it.I haven't planed anything over about 12 ft long without a motor, if I
>
remember correctly, just the Sprite and a Laser (unless you count
Windsurfer). Decidedly more relaxed in the Sprite, must not have been
working on abs and quads before sailing Laser. Keep in mind that the
Sprite is very low tech. 3 shrouds and no vang. Only blocks were for
halyards.
ghc <ghart-@...> wrote:
of various sorts I can count planing (even in a planing racing dinghy
mind you) on part of one hand. Fun, but not worth worrying too much
about.
I refer you to my Cheap Pages -- see the article by Ralph Munroe on his
proa, which was dead symmetrical and clearly did plane. Since the
Commodore didn't know what planing *is*, you cannot accuse the man of
setting out to design a hull that did so <chuckle>.
I doubt anyone, including PCB and Michalak, has designed a simpler
hull. It is just a long, flat-bottomed canoe and anyone can make the
same sort of hull from two boards, a center frame, and something to
make a bottom from (the Commodore used crossplanking; I guarantee you
this was not a light boat by modern standards though doubless very
light by 1890s measure). Rocker was minimal.
Robert B Roosevelt (Teddy's Uncle) built a 50-foot scow-sharpie proa.
See also the Cheap Pages for photos and the article. Dead symmetrical
hog trough style. Don't know if it planed, but RBR seemed happy enough
with its performance. Draft sans leeboards seems to have been 6 inches.
Don't know if the bottom was rockered or not. My guess is not, but I
don't know.
Of course, the smaller the hull the less likely to plane. But there you
have it.
> Not desirable if you want to plane.Does he? Do most of us? <chuckle> Out of several hundred sailing bouts
of various sorts I can count planing (even in a planing racing dinghy
mind you) on part of one hand. Fun, but not worth worrying too much
about.
I refer you to my Cheap Pages -- see the article by Ralph Munroe on his
proa, which was dead symmetrical and clearly did plane. Since the
Commodore didn't know what planing *is*, you cannot accuse the man of
setting out to design a hull that did so <chuckle>.
I doubt anyone, including PCB and Michalak, has designed a simpler
hull. It is just a long, flat-bottomed canoe and anyone can make the
same sort of hull from two boards, a center frame, and something to
make a bottom from (the Commodore used crossplanking; I guarantee you
this was not a light boat by modern standards though doubless very
light by 1890s measure). Rocker was minimal.
Robert B Roosevelt (Teddy's Uncle) built a 50-foot scow-sharpie proa.
See also the Cheap Pages for photos and the article. Dead symmetrical
hog trough style. Don't know if it planed, but RBR seemed happy enough
with its performance. Draft sans leeboards seems to have been 6 inches.
Don't know if the bottom was rockered or not. My guess is not, but I
don't know.
Of course, the smaller the hull the less likely to plane. But there you
have it.
Not desirable if you want to plane.
GHC
At 10:42 AM 3/12/2000 -0800, you wrote:
GHC
At 10:42 AM 3/12/2000 -0800, you wrote:
><<
>Any good reason such a boat shouldn't be symmetrical fore and aft if I
>make a point of using a tiller extension when sailing?
>>>
>
>Nope. No reason.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>DON'T HATE YOUR RATE!
>Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as
>0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees.
>Apply NOW!
>http://click.egroups.com/1/2120/5/_/3457/_/952886537/
>
>-- 20 megs of disk space in your group's Document Vault
>--http://www.egroups.com/docvault/bolger/?m=1
>
>
>
<<
Any good reason such a boat shouldn't be symmetrical fore and aft if I
make a point of using a tiller extension when sailing?
Any good reason such a boat shouldn't be symmetrical fore and aft if I
make a point of using a tiller extension when sailing?
>>Nope. No reason.
I just fiddled with Greg Carlson's Ply Hull Designer and came up with a
really crude hull shape (on purpose). It looks much like the square
canoe in the vault except more rocker, shorter, and wider. Displaces
500 lbs without dipping transom at 15 degrees heel, in fact, there's a
little left. Should take a little more than 3 sheets. Any good reason
such a boat shouldn't be symmetrical fore and aft if I make a point of
using a tiller extension when sailing? Keeps leeboard forward if I
decide to use one, could keep my back from hitting mast when rowing
home (by rowing backwards, little detachable skeg on bow) after wind
dies, etc. Intended 50/50 sailing and rowing, or maybe 60/40. This is
what I'm thinking about after all that discussion on the Brick.
THanks
P.S.http://www.carlsondesign.com/down near the bottom
really crude hull shape (on purpose). It looks much like the square
canoe in the vault except more rocker, shorter, and wider. Displaces
500 lbs without dipping transom at 15 degrees heel, in fact, there's a
little left. Should take a little more than 3 sheets. Any good reason
such a boat shouldn't be symmetrical fore and aft if I make a point of
using a tiller extension when sailing? Keeps leeboard forward if I
decide to use one, could keep my back from hitting mast when rowing
home (by rowing backwards, little detachable skeg on bow) after wind
dies, etc. Intended 50/50 sailing and rowing, or maybe 60/40. This is
what I'm thinking about after all that discussion on the Brick.
THanks
P.S.http://www.carlsondesign.com/down near the bottom