Re: [bolger] Forward Outboard Motorwells in skiffs and sharpies
Don,
The mullet skiffs that I've seen have a fairly large enclosed space
behind the motor, for raising the motor and keeping water from climbing
up the rear wall of the well and into the boat. It takes up a good bit
of space. The wells can still throw out quite a bit of spray; not
enough to bother a commercial fisherman in an open boat, but more than
you would want in a cabin. If you just want better maneuvering, how
about a trolling motor near the bow?
Good luck,
Ford Walton
donschultz8275 wrote:
The mullet skiffs that I've seen have a fairly large enclosed space
behind the motor, for raising the motor and keeping water from climbing
up the rear wall of the well and into the boat. It takes up a good bit
of space. The wells can still throw out quite a bit of spray; not
enough to bother a commercial fisherman in an open boat, but more than
you would want in a cabin. If you just want better maneuvering, how
about a trolling motor near the bow?
Good luck,
Ford Walton
donschultz8275 wrote:
>
> I'm reading a book by Harry V. Sucher titled "SIMPLIFIED BOATBUILDING
> THE FLAT-BOTTOM BOAT" published in 1973 by W.W. Norton & Company.
>
> In a chapter that discusses skiffs, the author brings up building a
> well through the bottom, just ahead of the center of buoyancy for an
> outboard motor. He includes designs for very small and much larger
> engines and talks up some of the uses and advantages.
>
> One advantage seems to be the ability to keep the prop' wet in
> rougher water.
>
> Anyway, I found this intriguing, as I'd seen a couple of photos of a
> Bolger Tennesee, built as an open boat with such an engine
> arrangement. This made me think of my possible future Illinois
> liveabord. I'd build her w' more power than Bolger intended to give
> her "some legs". Bolger suggests Illinois would move well with a
> pair of 50 hp large prop outboards. I'm thinking instead of mounting
> them both in the covered stern, perhaps tandem mounting would make
> sense. Sucher's chapter addresses design issues. The forward (and
> stern) engine could be retracted with the standard tilt mechanisms.
> Mounted fwd, it would serve as the bow thruster, and additional
> motive power. Now it would be 2 outboards total instead of 3.
>
> Any discussion of fwd mounted outboards in general?
>
>
> 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 think another reason for mounting an outboard in a well is to make
it less likely that the a net or line will get tangled in the prop.
There are reasons why an outboard motor should be outboard, including:
- more space inside the boat
- no reduction in buoyancy or planing area
- reduced noise
- reduced risk of gasoline dripping into the hull from, say, a
flooded carburetor
- avoids problems exhaust fumes
- allows an outboard well, thus preserving the hull's full freeboard.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@y...>
wrote:
it less likely that the a net or line will get tangled in the prop.
There are reasons why an outboard motor should be outboard, including:
- more space inside the boat
- no reduction in buoyancy or planing area
- reduced noise
- reduced risk of gasoline dripping into the hull from, say, a
flooded carburetor
- avoids problems exhaust fumes
- allows an outboard well, thus preserving the hull's full freeboard.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@y...>
wrote:
> When I was in Cedar Key a few years ago, I saw a
> number of these boats, though none so big as thirty
> feet. They mostly had net reels in the back and were
> flat bottomed, with, as Bruce describes, a flat run
> for most of the bottom and a turned-up area forward of
> the motor well towards the bow. I talked to one
> fellow who had one, and accoridng to him they were
> superior to stern-engine boats in their ability to
> pull themselves out of very shallow water on the
> extensive flats around Cedar Key--he said they would
> run on a heavy dew (he may have used a similar but
> more pithy expression, but with the same meaning). I
> think these baots are called "bird dog" skiffs.
> Somebody in the group must have some experaince with
> this type, which was very common at least in that
> particular part of the Gulf coast of Florida. Id love
> to hear about their charecteristics from someone who
> knows something about them. Sam
>
> --- Bruce Hector <bruce_hector@h...> wrote:
> > The largest forward motor mount vessel I've seen is
> > a circa 30 foot
> > by 6 foot beam mullet net handling boat in Florida
> > last winter.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
> Hmmm. We used to jam potatoes into the exhaust pipes of cars belonging toMMMMMmmmmmmm Potatoes...
> people we didn't like. Are outboard engines tougher?
Well there is that. It would probably be OK for a few inches of water,
especially once it was moving. Or maybe not.
It seems that if you want to keep the exhaust out of the boat,
making it go out underneath would be best.
Or disregarding the tiny exhaust relief ports above the lower unit, doesn't
the exhaust have to be able to exert enough force to
overcome the backpressure of the depth of water at the prop hub? There would
be no more added
backpressure, just a bigger pressurized area.
Where is Mister Wizard when you need him...
Justin
Hmmm. We used to jam potatoes into the exhaust pipes of cars belonging to
people we didn't like. Are outboard engines tougher?
Roger
derbyrm@...
derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
people we didn't like. Are outboard engines tougher?
Roger
derbyrm@...
derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Meddock" <jmeddock@...>
> > different. I've been considering how to best manage exhaust and
> > induction air needs.
>
<snip>
> The exhaust in the well should be forced out the bottom and lubricate your
> passage through the water.
> different. I've been considering how to best manage exhaust andI have seen saltwater bracket-mounted outboards with flex-tube air intakes
> induction air needs.
(at least I think that is what they are). Or it would be fairly easy to rig
up an
intake vent on a standard motor, since most cowls are sealed and draw air
from
one open area of the cover. Then, fit a cover over your well to dog down
and seal tightly, maybe with a window to see a fire or mechanical
malfunction.
The exhaust in the well should be forced out the bottom and lubricate your
passage through the water.
Sounds like time to build Skimmer double length and play around...
Justin
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, craig o'donnell <dadadata@f...> wrote:
weight management in working boats. Of course my goal is a bit
different. I've been considering how to best manage exhaust and
induction air needs.
> >Any discussion of fwd mounted outboards in general?(motor &
>
> Chapelle seemed to like them in small skiffs to keep the weight
> crew) out of the stern.Chapelle wrote the forward for Sucher's book. Sucher talked up
> --
> Craig O'Donnell
weight management in working boats. Of course my goal is a bit
different. I've been considering how to best manage exhaust and
induction air needs.
This subject came up a while back, and
someone (David Ryan?) had an anecdote about
how well this type of boat worked in the surf zone, spinning around and
beaching stern-to IIRC.
someone (David Ryan?) had an anecdote about
how well this type of boat worked in the surf zone, spinning around and
beaching stern-to IIRC.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Hector" <bruce_hector@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2004 12:29 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Forward Outboard Motorwells in skiffs and sharpies
>http://www.glen-l.com/designs/workboat/hunkydory.html
>
> Glen L's Hunkydory seems very close to the hull shapes I saw. Just
> mount the engine in an internal well at the point where the bow
> begins to rocker up.
>
> Bruce Hector
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.glen-l.com/designs/workboat/hunkydory.html
Glen L's Hunkydory seems very close to the hull shapes I saw. Just
mount the engine in an internal well at the point where the bow
begins to rocker up.
Bruce Hector
Glen L's Hunkydory seems very close to the hull shapes I saw. Just
mount the engine in an internal well at the point where the bow
begins to rocker up.
Bruce Hector
>Any discussion of fwd mounted outboards in general?Chapelle seemed to like them in small skiffs to keep the weight (motor &
crew) out of the stern.
--
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://www.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.
_________________________________
When I was in Cedar Key a few years ago, I saw a
number of these boats, though none so big as thirty
feet. They mostly had net reels in the back and were
flat bottomed, with, as Bruce describes, a flat run
for most of the bottom and a turned-up area forward of
the motor well towards the bow. I talked to one
fellow who had one, and accoridng to him they were
superior to stern-engine boats in their ability to
pull themselves out of very shallow water on the
extensive flats around Cedar Key--he said they would
run on a heavy dew (he may have used a similar but
more pithy expression, but with the same meaning). I
think these baots are called "bird dog" skiffs.
Somebody in the group must have some experaince with
this type, which was very common at least in that
particular part of the Gulf coast of Florida. Id love
to hear about their charecteristics from someone who
knows something about them. Sam
--- Bruce Hector <bruce_hector@...> wrote:
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
number of these boats, though none so big as thirty
feet. They mostly had net reels in the back and were
flat bottomed, with, as Bruce describes, a flat run
for most of the bottom and a turned-up area forward of
the motor well towards the bow. I talked to one
fellow who had one, and accoridng to him they were
superior to stern-engine boats in their ability to
pull themselves out of very shallow water on the
extensive flats around Cedar Key--he said they would
run on a heavy dew (he may have used a similar but
more pithy expression, but with the same meaning). I
think these baots are called "bird dog" skiffs.
Somebody in the group must have some experaince with
this type, which was very common at least in that
particular part of the Gulf coast of Florida. Id love
to hear about their charecteristics from someone who
knows something about them. Sam
--- Bruce Hector <bruce_hector@...> wrote:
> The largest forward motor mount vessel I've seen is__________________________________
> a circa 30 foot
> by 6 foot beam mullet net handling boat in Florida
> last winter.
>
>
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
----- Original Message -----
From: "donschultz8275" <donschultz@...>
<snip>
> Also, I intend to make use of my industrial automation skills,
> using a Programmable Logic Controller and industrial electric
> positioning cylinders to control the motor. Microswitches,
> and a USB camera connected to the ship's computer will
> provide monitoring of the forward engine position. The fwd
> engine will be thrusting ahead, hard port, hard starboard, or
> retracted. Those 4 positions are all I need from the forward
> engine. The throttle can be electrically controlled with a
> servomotor, or a less expensive stepper. Only
> power for the automation and a communications cable to
> the PLC need go to the fwd engine compartment.
I hope you're planning to use fiber optics, fluid logic, and triple
redundancy to compensate for the fact that water makes electrons quite
skittish.
> The design will permit manual positioning of the engine and throttle
> so it could still help even in case of computer or electrical failure.
>
> The stern engine will use conventional cables and other hardware
> controls, along with the electronics. Industrial SCADA software
> (supervisory control and data acquisition) will provide the basic
> interface from me to the forward engine, autopilot, and monitoring of
> all boat systems. Did I mention voice recognition based
> commands? "Command, port, NorthNorthEast, Confirm" [automated
> voice readback of command queued] "Execute" or "Cancel!"
>
<snip>
> I was taught Illinois is a French adaptation of the name of a
> Illinois aboriginal American tribe who called themselves Illini (the
> 2nd and 3rd i's are pronounced long as in pride) in their language.
> A notable chief of that tribe was Illiniwek. They were always having
> skirmishes w' the Blackhawks.
And now Chief Illiniwek dances for the UIUC football band.
Roger
derbyrm@...
derbyrm.mystarband.net/default.htm
The largest forward motor mount vessel I've seen is a circa 30 foot
by 6 foot beam mullet net handling boat in Florida last winter.
She mounted a 50 hp in a well only about 25% of her length back from
the bow. The bottom run was flat from the motor mount aft and had
fairly extreme rocker forward of the motor well.
She's shown in some darkish pics in the file named "forward motro
skiff" in the files section of Bolger4photos at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4photos/files/
Could be a rather interesting vessel. From her flat run of bottom I
gather she plabed, although I never saw one at sea.
Enjoy.
Bruce Hector
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KingstonMessabout/
or
http://www.brucesboats.com
for details and events at this years Kingston Messabout.
by 6 foot beam mullet net handling boat in Florida last winter.
She mounted a 50 hp in a well only about 25% of her length back from
the bow. The bottom run was flat from the motor mount aft and had
fairly extreme rocker forward of the motor well.
She's shown in some darkish pics in the file named "forward motro
skiff" in the files section of Bolger4photos at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4photos/files/
Could be a rather interesting vessel. From her flat run of bottom I
gather she plabed, although I never saw one at sea.
Enjoy.
Bruce Hector
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KingstonMessabout/
or
http://www.brucesboats.com
for details and events at this years Kingston Messabout.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donschultz8275" <donschultz@i...>
wrote:
wannabe and boat-bum in training, I like to have my boats the same
way I likes my women...nice and simple :-)
You are obviously way ahead of me with your design intentions and
I'll gracefully bow out of this discussion.Besides,you lost me at
the Programmable Logic Controller part......
Hopefully,some of the brighter bulbs in this garden will begin to
sprout for you since it does sound damned interesting,if not
impressive, and surely merits further study.
Again,best of luck with your Illinois project,if and when you start
her, and don't forget to take photos when you do begin :-)
Sincerely,
Peter"We're all outta Dilithium Crystals,Capt'n!" Lenihan,
scrambling for his Luddite beginners manual and membership card
before all hell begins.........
wrote:
> Also, I intend to make use of my industrial automation skills,using
> a Programmable Logic Controller and industrial electricpositioning
> cylinders to control the motor. Microswitches, and a USB cameraall I
> connected to the ship's computer will provide monitoring of the
> forward engine position. The fwd engine will be thrusting ahead,
> hard port, hard starboard, or retracted. Those 4 positions are
> need from the forward engine. The throttle can be electricallyneed
> controlled with a servomotor, or a less expensive stepper. Only
> power for the automation and a communications cable to the PLC
> go to the fwd engine compartment.throttle
>
> The design will permit manual positioning of the engine and
> so it could still help even in case of computer or electricalfailure.
>of
> The stern engine will use conventional cables and other hardware
> controls, along with the electronics. Industrial SCADA software
> (supervisory control and data acquisition) will provide the basic
> interface from me to the forward engine, autopilot, and monitoring
> all boat systems. Did I mention voice recognition basedvoice
> commands? "Command, port, NorthNorthEast, Confirm" [automated
> readback of command queued] "Execute" or "Cancel!"Well Mr.Schultz, I must confess that as a techno-weenie,Luddite
>
wannabe and boat-bum in training, I like to have my boats the same
way I likes my women...nice and simple :-)
You are obviously way ahead of me with your design intentions and
I'll gracefully bow out of this discussion.Besides,you lost me at
the Programmable Logic Controller part......
Hopefully,some of the brighter bulbs in this garden will begin to
sprout for you since it does sound damned interesting,if not
impressive, and surely merits further study.
Again,best of luck with your Illinois project,if and when you start
her, and don't forget to take photos when you do begin :-)
Sincerely,
Peter"We're all outta Dilithium Crystals,Capt'n!" Lenihan,
scrambling for his Luddite beginners manual and membership card
before all hell begins.........
"Peter Lenihan wrote:
in the forward (or stern) engine. Careful review of Bolger's simple
design shows that the original 'thruster' was a standard outboard and
only swung the typical 90'-100' thus no more than about 45' from
centerline. He suggests in the essay that one would have to balance
fwd thrust from the main engine in the stern to do some "pretty"
maneuvering. A 50-75 hp in reverse has got to make as much thrust as
a 10-18hp per Bolger's original design. Facing fwd, swinging 90' and
using reverse, I believe it will accomplish about as much as Bolger
intended. But I need not stop there. I can build a more
sophisticated mount to increase the swing of the engine.
be able to get her to swing 360 or even 180 degrees?
I just don't see a need to swing that far. 90' will do the job and
180' with a big engine will be overkill but probably worthwhile
overkill.
Also, I intend to make use of my industrial automation skills, using
a Programmable Logic Controller and industrial electric positioning
cylinders to control the motor. Microswitches, and a USB camera
connected to the ship's computer will provide monitoring of the
forward engine position. The fwd engine will be thrusting ahead,
hard port, hard starboard, or retracted. Those 4 positions are all I
need from the forward engine. The throttle can be electrically
controlled with a servomotor, or a less expensive stepper. Only
power for the automation and a communications cable to the PLC need
go to the fwd engine compartment.
The design will permit manual positioning of the engine and throttle
so it could still help even in case of computer or electrical failure.
The stern engine will use conventional cables and other hardware
controls, along with the electronics. Industrial SCADA software
(supervisory control and data acquisition) will provide the basic
interface from me to the forward engine, autopilot, and monitoring of
all boat systems. Did I mention voice recognition based
commands? "Command, port, NorthNorthEast, Confirm" [automated voice
readback of command queued] "Execute" or "Cancel!"
characteristics, rather than showing new original work like Bolger.
He is not inovating the fwd mounted outboard but reporting about it.
The skiffs in the Sucher book are smaller, the longest being 26' and
there is of course no "tandem" configuration shown. A 20' trolling
skiff and 26' salmon net tender had significant rocker, that had me
thinking a Tennesee with a pair of 10s may make a suitable test bed
for these ideas.
Illinois aboriginal American tribe who called themselves Illini (the
2nd and 3rd i's are pronounced long as in pride) in their language.
A notable chief of that tribe was Illiniwek. They were always having
skirmishes w' the Blackhawks.
Thanks for the input.
> By moving the engines in tandem instead of side by side,you loseI don't need all 50-70hp worth the thrust available for all vectors
> some of the turning-on-a-dime-with-zero-forward-speed option that
> the original presentation offered.
in the forward (or stern) engine. Careful review of Bolger's simple
design shows that the original 'thruster' was a standard outboard and
only swung the typical 90'-100' thus no more than about 45' from
centerline. He suggests in the essay that one would have to balance
fwd thrust from the main engine in the stern to do some "pretty"
maneuvering. A 50-75 hp in reverse has got to make as much thrust as
a 10-18hp per Bolger's original design. Facing fwd, swinging 90' and
using reverse, I believe it will accomplish about as much as Bolger
intended. But I need not stop there. I can build a more
sophisticated mount to increase the swing of the engine.
>.....I wonder,even with a 50hp in the forward well with all of it'sattendant controls(throttle,transmission and steering),will you ever
be able to get her to swing 360 or even 180 degrees?
I just don't see a need to swing that far. 90' will do the job and
180' with a big engine will be overkill but probably worthwhile
overkill.
Also, I intend to make use of my industrial automation skills, using
a Programmable Logic Controller and industrial electric positioning
cylinders to control the motor. Microswitches, and a USB camera
connected to the ship's computer will provide monitoring of the
forward engine position. The fwd engine will be thrusting ahead,
hard port, hard starboard, or retracted. Those 4 positions are all I
need from the forward engine. The throttle can be electrically
controlled with a servomotor, or a less expensive stepper. Only
power for the automation and a communications cable to the PLC need
go to the fwd engine compartment.
The design will permit manual positioning of the engine and throttle
so it could still help even in case of computer or electrical failure.
The stern engine will use conventional cables and other hardware
controls, along with the electronics. Industrial SCADA software
(supervisory control and data acquisition) will provide the basic
interface from me to the forward engine, autopilot, and monitoring of
all boat systems. Did I mention voice recognition based
commands? "Command, port, NorthNorthEast, Confirm" [automated voice
readback of command queued] "Execute" or "Cancel!"
> Anywhooooo.......just some concerns of mine.Besides,wasn't SuchersSucher seems to report about existing designs, detailing their
> work mostly concentrated on small skiffs and run-a-bouts and not
> displacement hulls?
characteristics, rather than showing new original work like Bolger.
He is not inovating the fwd mounted outboard but reporting about it.
The skiffs in the Sucher book are smaller, the longest being 26' and
there is of course no "tandem" configuration shown. A 20' trolling
skiff and 26' salmon net tender had significant rocker, that had me
thinking a Tennesee with a pair of 10s may make a suitable test bed
for these ideas.
> Peter Lenihan,too chickenshit to ever try a really Big Bolger BeastIllinois
> like Illinois and just wondering,off the top of my head, if
> is not a bastardization of the French Iles aux Noix(Island ofI was taught Illinois is a French adaptation of the name of a
> Nuts),from along the shores of the warm St.Lawrence......
Illinois aboriginal American tribe who called themselves Illini (the
2nd and 3rd i's are pronounced long as in pride) in their language.
A notable chief of that tribe was Illiniwek. They were always having
skirmishes w' the Blackhawks.
Thanks for the input.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donschultz8275" <donschultz@i...>
wrote:
I'm thinking instead of mounting
By moving the engines in tandem instead of side by side,you lose
some of the turning-on-a-dime-with-zero-forward-speed option that
the original presentation offered.
Twin 50's represent a nice bit of de facto ballast,especially as
concerns trim and moving one of them forward may have an adverse
effect unless compensated for.
Wishing to go with bigger power plants isn't such a bad idea but I
wonder,even with a 50hp in the forward well with all of it's
attendant controls(throttle,transmission and steering),will you ever
be able to get her to swing 360 or even 180 degrees?
If I recall,that forward outboard, used as a bow-thruster,is
mounted"backwards" so as to allow one to literally move the boat
sideways with proper balance between the aft engines and the forward
one. Thus,to power up to speed forward,that bow thruster engine
would have to be run in reverse......or simply raised back up in
it's well,as per plan,and the boat run on one engine.
Anywhooooo.......just some conerns of mine.Besides,wasn't Suchers
work mostly concentrated on small skiffs and run-a-bouts and not
displacement hulls?
Good luck with you plans and look forward to the day you begin
building Illinois.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,too chickenshit to ever try a really Big Bolger Beast
like Illinois and just wondering,off the top of my head, if Illinois
is not a bastardization of the French Iles aux Noix(Island of
Nuts),from along the shores of the warm St.Lawrence..........
wrote:
I'm thinking instead of mounting
> them both in the covered stern, perhaps tandem mounting would make(and
> sense. Sucher's chapter addresses design issues. The forward
> stern) engine could be retracted with the standard tiltmechanisms.
> Mounted fwd, it would serve as the bow thruster, and additionalNeet idea Don. Here are some thoughts to chew on or consider;
> motive power. Now it would be 2 outboards total instead of 3.
>
> Any discussion of fwd mounted outboards in general?
By moving the engines in tandem instead of side by side,you lose
some of the turning-on-a-dime-with-zero-forward-speed option that
the original presentation offered.
Twin 50's represent a nice bit of de facto ballast,especially as
concerns trim and moving one of them forward may have an adverse
effect unless compensated for.
Wishing to go with bigger power plants isn't such a bad idea but I
wonder,even with a 50hp in the forward well with all of it's
attendant controls(throttle,transmission and steering),will you ever
be able to get her to swing 360 or even 180 degrees?
If I recall,that forward outboard, used as a bow-thruster,is
mounted"backwards" so as to allow one to literally move the boat
sideways with proper balance between the aft engines and the forward
one. Thus,to power up to speed forward,that bow thruster engine
would have to be run in reverse......or simply raised back up in
it's well,as per plan,and the boat run on one engine.
Anywhooooo.......just some conerns of mine.Besides,wasn't Suchers
work mostly concentrated on small skiffs and run-a-bouts and not
displacement hulls?
Good luck with you plans and look forward to the day you begin
building Illinois.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,too chickenshit to ever try a really Big Bolger Beast
like Illinois and just wondering,off the top of my head, if Illinois
is not a bastardization of the French Iles aux Noix(Island of
Nuts),from along the shores of the warm St.Lawrence..........
I'm reading a book by Harry V. Sucher titled "SIMPLIFIED BOATBUILDING
THE FLAT-BOTTOM BOAT" published in 1973 by W.W. Norton & Company.
In a chapter that discusses skiffs, the author brings up building a
well through the bottom, just ahead of the center of buoyancy for an
outboard motor. He includes designs for very small and much larger
engines and talks up some of the uses and advantages.
One advantage seems to be the ability to keep the prop' wet in
rougher water.
Anyway, I found this intriguing, as I'd seen a couple of photos of a
Bolger Tennesee, built as an open boat with such an engine
arrangement. This made me think of my possible future Illinois
liveabord. I'd build her w' more power than Bolger intended to give
her "some legs". Bolger suggests Illinois would move well with a
pair of 50 hp large prop outboards. I'm thinking instead of mounting
them both in the covered stern, perhaps tandem mounting would make
sense. Sucher's chapter addresses design issues. The forward (and
stern) engine could be retracted with the standard tilt mechanisms.
Mounted fwd, it would serve as the bow thruster, and additional
motive power. Now it would be 2 outboards total instead of 3.
Any discussion of fwd mounted outboards in general?
THE FLAT-BOTTOM BOAT" published in 1973 by W.W. Norton & Company.
In a chapter that discusses skiffs, the author brings up building a
well through the bottom, just ahead of the center of buoyancy for an
outboard motor. He includes designs for very small and much larger
engines and talks up some of the uses and advantages.
One advantage seems to be the ability to keep the prop' wet in
rougher water.
Anyway, I found this intriguing, as I'd seen a couple of photos of a
Bolger Tennesee, built as an open boat with such an engine
arrangement. This made me think of my possible future Illinois
liveabord. I'd build her w' more power than Bolger intended to give
her "some legs". Bolger suggests Illinois would move well with a
pair of 50 hp large prop outboards. I'm thinking instead of mounting
them both in the covered stern, perhaps tandem mounting would make
sense. Sucher's chapter addresses design issues. The forward (and
stern) engine could be retracted with the standard tilt mechanisms.
Mounted fwd, it would serve as the bow thruster, and additional
motive power. Now it would be 2 outboards total instead of 3.
Any discussion of fwd mounted outboards in general?