Re: [bolger] Otter II, Sneakeasy
--- Howard Stephenson <stephensonhw@...> wrote:
believe was the second Topaz hull from four sheets of
Bolger plans. I found numerous errors in putting the
thing together, but they were all mine. Every time I
thought the plan were off, sufficient thinking showed
them right. Pretty impressive. Sam
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> I wanted to draw attention to a most appealingAmen, Howard. I will add that I put together what I
> aspect of his writing:
> his honesty in confessing to what he regards as his
> own errors.
> Knowing this should illuminate our understanding of
> the apparent
> inconsistency in the plans for Sneakeasy, discussed
> here recently.
believe was the second Topaz hull from four sheets of
Bolger plans. I found numerous errors in putting the
thing together, but they were all mine. Every time I
thought the plan were off, sufficient thinking showed
them right. Pretty impressive. Sam
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Jason,
David Carnell was kind enough to respond off-group earlier this year.
I rekon he would not mind passing his comments on below as his email
address was posted by his friend on this group for any interested in
Otter ll, and its possible problems as discussed on-group.
Like you I still think she looks sweet, and I note he kept her till
she died.
Regards graeme.
Dave wrote:
Graeme,
I had hoped the Otter II would be a trailerable sailboat. It was too
heavy and difficult to rig for that. It was a good sailer, thouigh.
Bolger told me the other two prototype builders swamped their boats,
so I
built flotation into the cockpit, but never had real problems. By
the
time I had water coming over the gunwale, the rig dumped its wind.
It was terribly cramped for two to cruise aboard. I used it for ten
years
till the worms ate through the bottom and sank her at her mooring.
Dave
graeme19121984 wrote:
wrote:
David Carnell was kind enough to respond off-group earlier this year.
I rekon he would not mind passing his comments on below as his email
address was posted by his friend on this group for any interested in
Otter ll, and its possible problems as discussed on-group.
Like you I still think she looks sweet, and I note he kept her till
she died.
Regards graeme.
Dave wrote:
Graeme,
I had hoped the Otter II would be a trailerable sailboat. It was too
heavy and difficult to rig for that. It was a good sailer, thouigh.
Bolger told me the other two prototype builders swamped their boats,
so I
built flotation into the cockpit, but never had real problems. By
the
time I had water coming over the gunwale, the rig dumped its wind.
It was terribly cramped for two to cruise aboard. I used it for ten
years
till the worms ate through the bottom and sank her at her mooring.
Dave
graeme19121984 wrote:
> >From the few photos I've seen the Otter seems to fit the looks ofa
> boat I'd like to build. How ever I understand from the Bolger yahooit.
> group that you had problems with it and were'nt entirely satisfied.
>
> I'd be very pleased if you could tell me what you found wrong with
>--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Stancil" <jasonstancil@h...>
> Thanks, and Kind Regards
> Graeme
wrote:
> Never have seen this boat as that book used goes for about 80bucks
> whenever i look for it. Is it the blue boat in files section? Thatwith
> is called otter II? Or is that just chance? What was the boat
> designed for? Beach cruising, offshore rompesque? or day sailing?
> Love to see some more info on that thing as that blue otter pic
> the red antifoul looks sweet.
> jason
> PCB says Otter II is self-righting in aI believe that when tried, an Otter II required some ballast. The
> knockdown.
remark was in one of PCB's Small Boat Journal columns. Anyone
interested in a boat about like that should consult the man himself.
He might suggest that you go to the version of Wish II with a regular
cockpit.
There have been a lot boats name Otter.
Peter
It's the one (just barely) shown in the file in the Otter II folder
of the files section of this Group.
According to Small Boats, Otter was designed as a quickly, cheaply
and easily built boat for singlehanded weekend cruising and
daysailing on the north shore of Long Island Sound. Otter II looks
quite different and is a foot wider, with free-flooding ends like
Micro etc. Not having a deep ballast keel, and being fairly light, it
would be a nice trailer-sailer, with a bit of style to it.
Recently someone was asking about the self-righting capability of
unballasted boats like this. PCB says Otter II is self-righting in a
knockdown.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Stancil" <jasonstancil@h...>
wrote:
of the files section of this Group.
According to Small Boats, Otter was designed as a quickly, cheaply
and easily built boat for singlehanded weekend cruising and
daysailing on the north shore of Long Island Sound. Otter II looks
quite different and is a foot wider, with free-flooding ends like
Micro etc. Not having a deep ballast keel, and being fairly light, it
would be a nice trailer-sailer, with a bit of style to it.
Recently someone was asking about the self-righting capability of
unballasted boats like this. PCB says Otter II is self-righting in a
knockdown.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Stancil" <jasonstancil@h...>
wrote:
> Never have seen this boat as that book used goes for about 80 bucks
> whenever i look for it. Is it the blue boat in files section? That
> is called otter II?
I think i'm thinking of a dif. otter as i saw a sketch of one here
called otter II. The boat i'm talkig about.....but can't find is a
multi-chine flat bottom boat nosed onto a beach.
Jason
called otter II. The boat i'm talkig about.....but can't find is a
multi-chine flat bottom boat nosed onto a beach.
Jason
Never have seen this boat as that book used goes for about 80 bucks
whenever i look for it. Is it the blue boat in files section? That
is called otter II? Or is that just chance? What was the boat
designed for? Beach cruising, offshore rompesque? or day sailing?
Love to see some more info on that thing as that blue otter pic with
the red antifoul looks sweet.
jason
whenever i look for it. Is it the blue boat in files section? That
is called otter II? Or is that just chance? What was the boat
designed for? Beach cruising, offshore rompesque? or day sailing?
Love to see some more info on that thing as that blue otter pic with
the red antifoul looks sweet.
jason
> Howard Stephenson wrote:In the other direction too.
> I wanted to draw attention to a most appealing aspect of his writing:
> his honesty in confessing to what he regards as his own errors.
In his concluding paragraph of the writeup to
#635 Col. H.G. Hassler he (she?) writes:
"This was an exceedingly demanding design to work on.
We think the result is the most capable 20-footer
ever conceived."
Most capable ever conceived, that is saying something. <g>
I've been re-reading, for perhaps the 20th time since I bought
Different Boats about two decades ago, what PCB has to say about this
little gem: a 20' flat-bottomed gaff-yawl-rigged leeboarder, designed
when PCB still thought that topsides should be flared.
I wanted to draw attention to a most appealing aspect of his writing:
his honesty in confessing to what he regards as his own errors. He
says the main deficiency with Otter (see Small Boats) was that
it "was not laid out for efficient assembly", instant-boat style.
Then he goes on to say how he made two errors when drawing Otter II.
One was a mathematical error when calculating the sail area that
required redrawing three sheets of plans to correct. The error was
not discovered until well after the prototype was built.
Knowing this should illuminate our understanding of the apparent
inconsistency in the plans for Sneakeasy, discussed here recently.
Howard
Different Boats about two decades ago, what PCB has to say about this
little gem: a 20' flat-bottomed gaff-yawl-rigged leeboarder, designed
when PCB still thought that topsides should be flared.
I wanted to draw attention to a most appealing aspect of his writing:
his honesty in confessing to what he regards as his own errors. He
says the main deficiency with Otter (see Small Boats) was that
it "was not laid out for efficient assembly", instant-boat style.
Then he goes on to say how he made two errors when drawing Otter II.
One was a mathematical error when calculating the sail area that
required redrawing three sheets of plans to correct. The error was
not discovered until well after the prototype was built.
Knowing this should illuminate our understanding of the apparent
inconsistency in the plans for Sneakeasy, discussed here recently.
Howard