Re: [bolger] Re: Inboard Sneakeasy
You have any pictures of this conversion? Strikes me as similar to the
drive I have seen in the Australian Cat CC29.
HJ
Zack Tiger wrote:
drive I have seen in the Australian Cat CC29.
HJ
Zack Tiger wrote:
>Howard:
>I repowered an old (sic 'cheap') houseboat I bought by
>installing an engine/transaxle combo from a VW rabbit
>diesel on a well between the two aluminum pontoons.
>Instead of welding the gears, I had a spool fabricated
>(also called a "locker" by the circle track boys) to
>tie the two halfshafts together. Instead of
>eliminating the front shaft, I kept it and ran it
>forward to a mounting plate, running in the original
>wheel bearing and hub. this was used to drive
>accessories such as a gnerator, bilge pump, etc.
>While not a lot of time was spent on this (it was
>after all a 'cheapie' exercise, there were some
>technical problems unresolved to my satisfaction when
>I sold the boat:
>1) aux shaft rpm varied with engine speed, which isnt
>so good for generating, pumping etc. I think a torgue
>converter/clutch off a motorcycle or snowmobile would
>help rectify this.
>2) the main drive shaft/support/prop drive was iffyin
>terms of cv jointboot sealing and longevity. Also, do
>to the fact that the strut had to be outboard of the
>cv joint for stability, changing the boot was a pain
>in the @$%. I tried a split boot that used small bolts
>down the side and which could be installed without
>ynaking the whole outboard shaft, but they were not
>reliable.
>3) the low position of the drive shaft in the well box
>made for some real challenges to sealing, and early
>attempts werenot too waterproof. A modified sterndrive
>bellows solved this problem eventually.
>4) on the plus side, fuel economy was incredible, and
>to push that big fat barge with an outboard (she
>originally had a 75hp) would have been prohibitive.
>--- donschultz8275 <donschultz@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
Howard:
I repowered an old (sic 'cheap') houseboat I bought by
installing an engine/transaxle combo from a VW rabbit
diesel on a well between the two aluminum pontoons.
Instead of welding the gears, I had a spool fabricated
(also called a "locker" by the circle track boys) to
tie the two halfshafts together. Instead of
eliminating the front shaft, I kept it and ran it
forward to a mounting plate, running in the original
wheel bearing and hub. this was used to drive
accessories such as a gnerator, bilge pump, etc.
While not a lot of time was spent on this (it was
after all a 'cheapie' exercise, there were some
technical problems unresolved to my satisfaction when
I sold the boat:
1) aux shaft rpm varied with engine speed, which isnt
so good for generating, pumping etc. I think a torgue
converter/clutch off a motorcycle or snowmobile would
help rectify this.
2) the main drive shaft/support/prop drive was iffyin
terms of cv jointboot sealing and longevity. Also, do
to the fact that the strut had to be outboard of the
cv joint for stability, changing the boot was a pain
in the @$%. I tried a split boot that used small bolts
down the side and which could be installed without
ynaking the whole outboard shaft, but they were not
reliable.
3) the low position of the drive shaft in the well box
made for some real challenges to sealing, and early
attempts werenot too waterproof. A modified sterndrive
bellows solved this problem eventually.
4) on the plus side, fuel economy was incredible, and
to push that big fat barge with an outboard (she
originally had a 75hp) would have been prohibitive.
--- donschultz8275 <donschultz@...> wrote:
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
I repowered an old (sic 'cheap') houseboat I bought by
installing an engine/transaxle combo from a VW rabbit
diesel on a well between the two aluminum pontoons.
Instead of welding the gears, I had a spool fabricated
(also called a "locker" by the circle track boys) to
tie the two halfshafts together. Instead of
eliminating the front shaft, I kept it and ran it
forward to a mounting plate, running in the original
wheel bearing and hub. this was used to drive
accessories such as a gnerator, bilge pump, etc.
While not a lot of time was spent on this (it was
after all a 'cheapie' exercise, there were some
technical problems unresolved to my satisfaction when
I sold the boat:
1) aux shaft rpm varied with engine speed, which isnt
so good for generating, pumping etc. I think a torgue
converter/clutch off a motorcycle or snowmobile would
help rectify this.
2) the main drive shaft/support/prop drive was iffyin
terms of cv jointboot sealing and longevity. Also, do
to the fact that the strut had to be outboard of the
cv joint for stability, changing the boot was a pain
in the @$%. I tried a split boot that used small bolts
down the side and which could be installed without
ynaking the whole outboard shaft, but they were not
reliable.
3) the low position of the drive shaft in the well box
made for some real challenges to sealing, and early
attempts werenot too waterproof. A modified sterndrive
bellows solved this problem eventually.
4) on the plus side, fuel economy was incredible, and
to push that big fat barge with an outboard (she
originally had a 75hp) would have been prohibitive.
--- donschultz8275 <donschultz@...> wrote:
>__________________________________
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
> <stephensonhw@a...>
> wrote:
> >
> > These days, nearly every 4-cyl. auto engine
> (except, I think, the
> > Subaru) is mounted sideways and drive is to the
> front wheels. Does
> > this layout make the engines harder to adapt to
> marine use than the
> > old way, where the engine is fore-and-aft, with a
> gearbox behind it
> > and a propellor shaft connecting the gearbox to
> the rear wheels
> > through a differential?
>
> Actually a transverse engine/trans combo from any of
> a large number of
> cars would make for a very compact drive system
> because the trans lays
> alongside rather than behind the engine. This will
> offset the engine
> to one side of the center line of the boat, but the
> weight could be
> offset by the battery, fuel and other interior
> design choices.
>
> An upside is that your junkyard engine choices range
> from tiny Korean
> and Jap vehicles up through a 4.9 liter 200hp+
> Cadillac of the early
> 90's Sedan de Ville. You'll need to take the entire
> wiring harness and
> computer from the car.
>
> It would be necessary to weld the spider gears to
> lock the
> differential in any of these engine/trans combos.
> It's an old stock
> car racing trick to do this in a fully assembled
> diff', catching the
> slag in heavy grease and cleaning it out afterward.
> One of the
> half-shafts with its CV joints would connect to the
> propeller shaft
> and a plate would need to be made to cover the other
> half-shaft port.
>
> Of course there would be much other work to do on
> the exhaust, and the
> cooling circuit. The great majority of engines
> would be gasoline
> (petrol) which is nasty stuff in an inboard boat.
>
> Also your boat would have to haul around the
> automotive transmission
> which will always have more gears and weight than
> necessary, but you
> would avoid the cost and work of adapting a "marine"
> reduction gear to
> match the prop to the automotive engine rpm.
>
>
>
>
>
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
> Hi Jeff,I would guess the Kawaski engine I have weights about 85 lbs.
> Thanks for yours and everyone elses comments. I did some
> investigating since then with the plans, books, mags, and
> the hulls program. I found that if I fill in the tails to
> make a slipper stern it adds about ~158 lbs capacity to the
> 3" draft, so that helps some. It would also reduce
> cavitation. It also moves the CB back some. It looks like
> PCB has the seats directly over the original CB with all
> other weight (tanks, engine, extra seats) added behind that
> point. A 30 HP OB weighs ~205 lbs. With the increased
> boyancy and moving
> equipment around to coincide with the original weight
> distribution I should be able to install a 30 HP inboard
> without affecting the draft too much. Do you know what
> weight your engine is, the distance from the bow it is
> installed, the WL draft and the shaft angle?
>
The engine bay starts about 18 feet aft of the bow. Shaft
angle is a guess since I mounted the engine and adjusted the
shaft assembly to fit but I would think it's arouned 12 degrees.
My draft is per plans at about 3 inches. The entire weight of
the engine and drive assembly is about 120 lbs. or roughly
equal to a 20 HP outboard.
A 30HP inboard would be okay with overpowering the boat, if you
could keep it to 200 lbs. or lower you'd be okay.
Jeff
> Hi Jeff,That seems kinda heavy. I've hauled a bunch of older 30's-40's around
> A 30 HP OB weighs ~205 lbs. With the increased boyancy and moving
> equipment around to coincide with the original weight distribution I
> should be able to install a 30 HP inboard without affecting the draft
> too much. Do you know what weight your engine is, the distance from
> the bow it is installed, the WL draft and the shaft angle?
>
> Dave
and while they're not light, 200+ seems like to much.
Perhaps you're including fuel tanks?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
draft of about 3 inches you'll have a boat that handles terrible.
and drive assemble weighs about what an outboard weighs. >
Thanks for yours and everyone elses comments. I did some
investigating since then with the plans, books, mags, and the hulls
program. I found that if I fill in the tails to make a slipper stern
it adds about ~158 lbs capacity to the 3" draft, so that helps some.
It would also reduce cavitation. It also moves the CB back some. It
looks like PCB has the seats directly over the original CB with all
other weight (tanks, engine, extra seats) added behind that point. A
30 HP OB weighs ~205 lbs. With the increased boyancy and moving
equipment around to coincide with the original weight distribution I
should be able to install a 30 HP inboard without affecting the draft
too much. Do you know what weight your engine is, the distance from
the bow it is installed, the WL draft and the shaft angle?
Dave
> Hi Dave, I'm the one with the Kitchen rudder with the Sneakeasy.Here's a few of my thoughts on your ideas.
>design. If you add enough weight to drop her down past the designed
> As to losing the shallow draft the biggest problem is the boat
draft of about 3 inches you'll have a boat that handles terrible.
>like my Kawasaki 20 HP would be a much better way. The entire engine
> Finding some way to add a transmission to a small inboard engine
and drive assemble weighs about what an outboard weighs. >
> JeffHi Jeff,
>
Thanks for yours and everyone elses comments. I did some
investigating since then with the plans, books, mags, and the hulls
program. I found that if I fill in the tails to make a slipper stern
it adds about ~158 lbs capacity to the 3" draft, so that helps some.
It would also reduce cavitation. It also moves the CB back some. It
looks like PCB has the seats directly over the original CB with all
other weight (tanks, engine, extra seats) added behind that point. A
30 HP OB weighs ~205 lbs. With the increased boyancy and moving
equipment around to coincide with the original weight distribution I
should be able to install a 30 HP inboard without affecting the draft
too much. Do you know what weight your engine is, the distance from
the bow it is installed, the WL draft and the shaft angle?
Dave
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@a...>
wrote:
cars would make for a very compact drive system because the trans lays
alongside rather than behind the engine. This will offset the engine
to one side of the center line of the boat, but the weight could be
offset by the battery, fuel and other interior design choices.
An upside is that your junkyard engine choices range from tiny Korean
and Jap vehicles up through a 4.9 liter 200hp+ Cadillac of the early
90's Sedan de Ville. You'll need to take the entire wiring harness and
computer from the car.
It would be necessary to weld the spider gears to lock the
differential in any of these engine/trans combos. It's an old stock
car racing trick to do this in a fully assembled diff', catching the
slag in heavy grease and cleaning it out afterward. One of the
half-shafts with its CV joints would connect to the propeller shaft
and a plate would need to be made to cover the other half-shaft port.
Of course there would be much other work to do on the exhaust, and the
cooling circuit. The great majority of engines would be gasoline
(petrol) which is nasty stuff in an inboard boat.
Also your boat would have to haul around the automotive transmission
which will always have more gears and weight than necessary, but you
would avoid the cost and work of adapting a "marine" reduction gear to
match the prop to the automotive engine rpm.
wrote:
>Actually a transverse engine/trans combo from any of a large number of
> These days, nearly every 4-cyl. auto engine (except, I think, the
> Subaru) is mounted sideways and drive is to the front wheels. Does
> this layout make the engines harder to adapt to marine use than the
> old way, where the engine is fore-and-aft, with a gearbox behind it
> and a propellor shaft connecting the gearbox to the rear wheels
> through a differential?
cars would make for a very compact drive system because the trans lays
alongside rather than behind the engine. This will offset the engine
to one side of the center line of the boat, but the weight could be
offset by the battery, fuel and other interior design choices.
An upside is that your junkyard engine choices range from tiny Korean
and Jap vehicles up through a 4.9 liter 200hp+ Cadillac of the early
90's Sedan de Ville. You'll need to take the entire wiring harness and
computer from the car.
It would be necessary to weld the spider gears to lock the
differential in any of these engine/trans combos. It's an old stock
car racing trick to do this in a fully assembled diff', catching the
slag in heavy grease and cleaning it out afterward. One of the
half-shafts with its CV joints would connect to the propeller shaft
and a plate would need to be made to cover the other half-shaft port.
Of course there would be much other work to do on the exhaust, and the
cooling circuit. The great majority of engines would be gasoline
(petrol) which is nasty stuff in an inboard boat.
Also your boat would have to haul around the automotive transmission
which will always have more gears and weight than necessary, but you
would avoid the cost and work of adapting a "marine" reduction gear to
match the prop to the automotive engine rpm.
On Oct 8, 2004, at 7:53 PM, Hugo Tyson wrote:
but I am sure it is beyond my skill level. I hope PCB gets
you some plans soon. And please share enough to make us
jealous.
hal
>I was aware of this. I have admired the Snow Leopard design,
> Phil Bolger is currently designing me an Inboard Runabout based on the
> "Snow Leopard" design featured in his book "BWAOM". The new design is
> slightly smaller at 26' x 6'6'' and will, according to Bolger, only
> require an engine of about 130 HP to exceed 30+ Knots.
>
>
>
> The new design is called "Silver Blaze", its not finished yet, and I'm
> not sure how much progress Bolger has made on it since I spoke to him
> in late January, but I'm hoping it will be completed before the year
> ends.
but I am sure it is beyond my skill level. I hope PCB gets
you some plans soon. And please share enough to make us
jealous.
hal
These days, nearly every 4-cyl. auto engine (except, I think, the
Subaru) is mounted sideways and drive is to the front wheels. Does
this layout make the engines harder to adapt to marine use than the
old way, where the engine is fore-and-aft, with a gearbox behind it
and a propellor shaft connecting the gearbox to the rear wheels
through a differential?
I wouldn't have a boat with an inboard petrol engine -- too
dangerous, in my view, although the risk is minimized if it's
installed properly. The best small light automotive turbo-diesel
engines come from Europe, as far as I know, and they would not be
easy to find second-hand outside Europe. They'd still be much heavier
than petrol engines of the same power.
Howard
Subaru) is mounted sideways and drive is to the front wheels. Does
this layout make the engines harder to adapt to marine use than the
old way, where the engine is fore-and-aft, with a gearbox behind it
and a propellor shaft connecting the gearbox to the rear wheels
through a differential?
I wouldn't have a boat with an inboard petrol engine -- too
dangerous, in my view, although the risk is minimized if it's
installed properly. The best small light automotive turbo-diesel
engines come from Europe, as far as I know, and they would not be
easy to find second-hand outside Europe. They'd still be much heavier
than petrol engines of the same power.
Howard
Keep in mind the following is my opinion which is not nearly as well
informed as many here.
informed as many here.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
>
> It really wouldn't take much to make the Sneakeasy capable for a
bigger inboard but then she'd cease being a Sneakeasy but what the
heck building our concepts and ideas is part of being "amateur" builders.
>
end quote
You might also think about starting with a set of Idaho plans which is
a bigger version of pretty much the same hull, but still very trailerable.
Realistically, I think one needs to think in terms of an engine that
comes from Briggs & Stratton, or Kohler rather than a "small" 4
banger. An 18-25 hp lawn&garden class engine would not weigh much.
Maybe 125lbs. A transmission adapted from a small car, or even lawn &
garden equipment would also keep the weight minimal.
Such a powerplant would keep you within the designed performance range
intended for Sneakeasy, or Idaho.
As Jeff said, the mods he suggests are a different boat, not a Sneakeasy.
Oops. The Bolger Firebrand's displacement is only 1120 pounds, about what I expect an
outboard powered Sneakeasy is designed for.
outboard powered Sneakeasy is designed for.
One can see centers for both gravity and buoyancy are about where the seats are now. Some
pictures I've seen show it lifting pretty high at the bow with the people congregating
with the outboard at the stern.
Once knowing all the weights, you owe it to yourself to check the flotation in Greg's
Hulls. A good representation, sneak1.hul, is already there. Just reset displacement. The
designer's 3" draft is essential to the low wake running, so keeping the crew to two could
be imperative.
(just looked) A 1000 pounds displacement draws about 3.5" CB is 175" from the bow. The
stem just barely into the water.
The smallest readily found auto engine I can think of is the 50 hp. 1L, 3 cylinder job out
of a Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift. Originally a motorcycle design, they're pretty torquey in a
1500 pound car at low engine speed.
Woodenboat #134 beautifully details converting a1985 Subaru, all aluminum, 100 hp flat
four weighing only 279 pounds for marine use. A Hurth transmission at 28 pounds; then cog
and sprockets, thrust bearing, and weldments brought the total to just 345.
You might find Bolger's Viper design interesting. That's basically a 20 x 4 foot Sneak
using a 15 hp, 350 pound Yanmar diesel. More to the point is the steam powered Sneakeasy
precursor Firebrand. That's nearly the same hull, just a little more rocker at the bow,
and the displacement is okay at 1500 pounds. The bench goes a little forward with the
boiler just behind. There's a pretty steep shaft angle in both that are carried over from
the original inspiration Hickman design. Both in 30-Odd-Boats.
Best o'luck,
Mark
dwhittington9 wrote:
pictures I've seen show it lifting pretty high at the bow with the people congregating
with the outboard at the stern.
Once knowing all the weights, you owe it to yourself to check the flotation in Greg's
Hulls. A good representation, sneak1.hul, is already there. Just reset displacement. The
designer's 3" draft is essential to the low wake running, so keeping the crew to two could
be imperative.
(just looked) A 1000 pounds displacement draws about 3.5" CB is 175" from the bow. The
stem just barely into the water.
The smallest readily found auto engine I can think of is the 50 hp. 1L, 3 cylinder job out
of a Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift. Originally a motorcycle design, they're pretty torquey in a
1500 pound car at low engine speed.
Woodenboat #134 beautifully details converting a1985 Subaru, all aluminum, 100 hp flat
four weighing only 279 pounds for marine use. A Hurth transmission at 28 pounds; then cog
and sprockets, thrust bearing, and weldments brought the total to just 345.
You might find Bolger's Viper design interesting. That's basically a 20 x 4 foot Sneak
using a 15 hp, 350 pound Yanmar diesel. More to the point is the steam powered Sneakeasy
precursor Firebrand. That's nearly the same hull, just a little more rocker at the bow,
and the displacement is okay at 1500 pounds. The bench goes a little forward with the
boiler just behind. There's a pretty steep shaft angle in both that are carried over from
the original inspiration Hickman design. Both in 30-Odd-Boats.
Best o'luck,
Mark
dwhittington9 wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the info so quick gents. I guess I need to figure out
> what power plant to use. Most likely a marinized automotive engine.
> Smallest I can find. I am familliar with inboard installations and
> the Glen-L book. I should be able to find a small 10 year old 4
> cylinder that I can convert and detune if needed. I don't plan on
> going over 30 and I've seen enough hard chined flatbottoms trip to
> know not to play circle racer. I just want a different boat to
> cruise up and down the river in. For a transmission I could use a
> Casale Z-drive with reverse for reverse and neutral functions. They
> weigh about 70 lbs or so. I want to stick with the flat bottom
> Sneakeasy as I like the thought of low wakes. The though of moving
> the seats aft is interesting and will give that thought. I will most
> likely cover the sides and bottom with glass/epoxy if I go inboard.
> Do you think I need two 1/2" bottom planks or one 1/2" and one 1/4"?
> Do the plans have the CG marked, or will I need to buid to plans to
> find out where it is? I will probably build the original version in
> basic form with the outboard to see how it performs. I'm in the
> middle of a Glen-L electric launch right now, but I fell in love
> with the Sneakeasy lines as soon as I saw them. Dave Whittington
I forgot to mention in my previous post, that the "Silver Blaze" inboard Torpedo-stern runabout (26' x 6' 6'')that Bolger is currently designing for me is designed to make almost no wake at displacement speeds and when on the plane she's supposed to ride fairly level without dragging her stern or pointing her bow way up in the air. In no wake zones she's supposed to be able to run faster than other planing power boats.
She's quite a bit removed from the "Sneakeasy", being far more complicated and costly to build in that she'll be fibreglass sheathed strip-planked construction. A round bottom hull with lots of curves and a pointed "Torpedo" stern. Full positive buoyancy in the case of a bad accident!!. Comfortable Seating for six adults. The engine is to be located forward of the two cockpits and will be a relatively lightweight (Alloy block?) large 4cylinder to very small Alloy V8 of no more than 4.0 litres capacity. Bolger told me that she'd require about 100-130HP to achieve 30+ Knots, so with a small 4.0L DOHC Alloy V8, like a Toyota Lexus engine of about 200-250HP she should be capable of at least 40 Knots, maybe even 50.
"The Silver Blaze" design will incorporate a few novel features like a closed system radiator cooled Auto engine to eliminate a few holes thru the hull as in a conventional inboard installation. A dry exhaust (Though I think that there might be a heat problem with this, epoxy and fibreglass and wood doesn't like very high temperatures!)
Another novel feature will be a retractable propeller, shaft and rudder system using "Aqua Drive" Marine CV joints and thrust bearings, enabling easy beaching of the boat without damaging the propeller and rudder etc. It may also make launching and retreiving easier, though by how much I'm not sure, if it'll make launching/retreiving any easier at all.
She'll also have adjustable trim tabs (So Susanne told me). The cockpit layout will have a two seat cockpit near the stern with the helm and controls. A larger cockpit forward of that will have 4 seats, 2 facing forward, 2 facing aft, with enough room to camp-cruise in if one so desired. A awning / tent arrangement could be erected over this cockpit.
The engine will be located forward of the large central cockpit, therefore it will have to be lightweight, no large (5.0L +) iron block V8.
We originally talked about a Subaru 3.3L Alloy Flat-six engine of about 185-200 HP, but here in Australia they're fairly rare, so we'll probably end up using a more readily available engine like an all alloy V-6 of between 2.8L - 3.6 L and abot 180HP. The new Holden "Commodore" has an all alloy 3.6 L V-6 of about 200HP and this might be a very good choice as its basically a Buick engine and the bell housing will match up easily with most marine gearboxes.
That's about all I know about the design at the moment and knowing Bolger some details might have changed since I spoke to him and Susanne in late January this year.
Hugo Tyson, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.
Howard Stephenson <stephensonhw@...> wrote:
To me, converting a flat-bottomed design into a vee-bottomed one is
not feasible. You should start with a clean sheet of paper.
A better option might be to look at some of the other Bolger designs
in the same series, which includes Sneakeasy, Tennessee, Idaho,
Dakota, Wyoming, and Illinois. Idaho might be big enough and its
centre of buoyancy is relatively farther forward than Sneakeasy's.
There is also the possibility of a small scale-up or down of one of
these.
Howard
She's quite a bit removed from the "Sneakeasy", being far more complicated and costly to build in that she'll be fibreglass sheathed strip-planked construction. A round bottom hull with lots of curves and a pointed "Torpedo" stern. Full positive buoyancy in the case of a bad accident!!. Comfortable Seating for six adults. The engine is to be located forward of the two cockpits and will be a relatively lightweight (Alloy block?) large 4cylinder to very small Alloy V8 of no more than 4.0 litres capacity. Bolger told me that she'd require about 100-130HP to achieve 30+ Knots, so with a small 4.0L DOHC Alloy V8, like a Toyota Lexus engine of about 200-250HP she should be capable of at least 40 Knots, maybe even 50.
"The Silver Blaze" design will incorporate a few novel features like a closed system radiator cooled Auto engine to eliminate a few holes thru the hull as in a conventional inboard installation. A dry exhaust (Though I think that there might be a heat problem with this, epoxy and fibreglass and wood doesn't like very high temperatures!)
Another novel feature will be a retractable propeller, shaft and rudder system using "Aqua Drive" Marine CV joints and thrust bearings, enabling easy beaching of the boat without damaging the propeller and rudder etc. It may also make launching and retreiving easier, though by how much I'm not sure, if it'll make launching/retreiving any easier at all.
She'll also have adjustable trim tabs (So Susanne told me). The cockpit layout will have a two seat cockpit near the stern with the helm and controls. A larger cockpit forward of that will have 4 seats, 2 facing forward, 2 facing aft, with enough room to camp-cruise in if one so desired. A awning / tent arrangement could be erected over this cockpit.
The engine will be located forward of the large central cockpit, therefore it will have to be lightweight, no large (5.0L +) iron block V8.
We originally talked about a Subaru 3.3L Alloy Flat-six engine of about 185-200 HP, but here in Australia they're fairly rare, so we'll probably end up using a more readily available engine like an all alloy V-6 of between 2.8L - 3.6 L and abot 180HP. The new Holden "Commodore" has an all alloy 3.6 L V-6 of about 200HP and this might be a very good choice as its basically a Buick engine and the bell housing will match up easily with most marine gearboxes.
That's about all I know about the design at the moment and knowing Bolger some details might have changed since I spoke to him and Susanne in late January this year.
Hugo Tyson, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.
Howard Stephenson <stephensonhw@...> wrote:
To me, converting a flat-bottomed design into a vee-bottomed one is
not feasible. You should start with a clean sheet of paper.
A better option might be to look at some of the other Bolger designs
in the same series, which includes Sneakeasy, Tennessee, Idaho,
Dakota, Wyoming, and Illinois. Idaho might be big enough and its
centre of buoyancy is relatively farther forward than Sneakeasy's.
There is also the possibility of a small scale-up or down of one of
these.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
>
> Here are some ideas for the Sneakeasy.
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 SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
hal <hal@...> wrote:
"My thoughts:
put a "real" bottom on it.
mid engine, crew aft just like the classics.
widen it to 5 feet.
Presto you no longer have a Sneakeasy. You have a completely
different boat with a family resemblance.
The conclusion I always come to is:
build a box cutwater Sneakeasy as it was designed
or
design a new boat using the Sneakeasy as inspiration.
hal"
Hal,
Phil Bolger is currently designing me an Inboard Runabout based on the "Snow Leopard" design featured in his book "BWAOM". The new design is slightly smaller at 26' x 6'6'' and will, according to Bolger, only require an engine of about 130 HP to exceed 30+ Knots.
The new design is called "Silver Blaze", its not finished yet, and I'm not sure how much progress Bolger has made on it since I spoke to him in late January, but I'm hoping it will be completed before the year ends.
One of the requirements was that the styling was to be based apon the "Snow Leopard" design, though how closely is yet to be seen as I've yet to see any drwaings!
Hugo Tyson, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.
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 SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"My thoughts:
put a "real" bottom on it.
mid engine, crew aft just like the classics.
widen it to 5 feet.
Presto you no longer have a Sneakeasy. You have a completely
different boat with a family resemblance.
The conclusion I always come to is:
build a box cutwater Sneakeasy as it was designed
or
design a new boat using the Sneakeasy as inspiration.
hal"
Hal,
Phil Bolger is currently designing me an Inboard Runabout based on the "Snow Leopard" design featured in his book "BWAOM". The new design is slightly smaller at 26' x 6'6'' and will, according to Bolger, only require an engine of about 130 HP to exceed 30+ Knots.
The new design is called "Silver Blaze", its not finished yet, and I'm not sure how much progress Bolger has made on it since I spoke to him in late January, but I'm hoping it will be completed before the year ends.
One of the requirements was that the styling was to be based apon the "Snow Leopard" design, though how closely is yet to be seen as I've yet to see any drwaings!
Hugo Tyson, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia.
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 SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
To me, converting a flat-bottomed design into a vee-bottomed one is
not feasible. You should start with a clean sheet of paper.
A better option might be to look at some of the other Bolger designs
in the same series, which includes Sneakeasy, Tennessee, Idaho,
Dakota, Wyoming, and Illinois. Idaho might be big enough and its
centre of buoyancy is relatively farther forward than Sneakeasy's.
There is also the possibility of a small scale-up or down of one of
these.
Howard
not feasible. You should start with a clean sheet of paper.
A better option might be to look at some of the other Bolger designs
in the same series, which includes Sneakeasy, Tennessee, Idaho,
Dakota, Wyoming, and Illinois. Idaho might be big enough and its
centre of buoyancy is relatively farther forward than Sneakeasy's.
There is also the possibility of a small scale-up or down of one of
these.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
>
> Here are some ideas for the Sneakeasy.
Thanks for all the info so quick gents. I guess I need to figure out
what power plant to use. Most likely a marinized automotive engine.
Smallest I can find. I am familliar with inboard installations and
the Glen-L book. I should be able to find a small 10 year old 4
cylinder that I can convert and detune if needed. I don't plan on
going over 30 and I've seen enough hard chined flatbottoms trip to
know not to play circle racer. I just want a different boat to
cruise up and down the river in. For a transmission I could use a
Casale Z-drive with reverse for reverse and neutral functions. They
weigh about 70 lbs or so. I want to stick with the flat bottom
Sneakeasy as I like the thought of low wakes. The though of moving
the seats aft is interesting and will give that thought. I will most
likely cover the sides and bottom with glass/epoxy if I go inboard.
Do you think I need two 1/2" bottom planks or one 1/2" and one 1/4"?
Do the plans have the CG marked, or will I need to buid to plans to
find out where it is? I will probably build the original version in
basic form with the outboard to see how it performs. I'm in the
middle of a Glen-L electric launch right now, but I fell in love
with the Sneakeasy lines as soon as I saw them. Dave Whittington
what power plant to use. Most likely a marinized automotive engine.
Smallest I can find. I am familliar with inboard installations and
the Glen-L book. I should be able to find a small 10 year old 4
cylinder that I can convert and detune if needed. I don't plan on
going over 30 and I've seen enough hard chined flatbottoms trip to
know not to play circle racer. I just want a different boat to
cruise up and down the river in. For a transmission I could use a
Casale Z-drive with reverse for reverse and neutral functions. They
weigh about 70 lbs or so. I want to stick with the flat bottom
Sneakeasy as I like the thought of low wakes. The though of moving
the seats aft is interesting and will give that thought. I will most
likely cover the sides and bottom with glass/epoxy if I go inboard.
Do you think I need two 1/2" bottom planks or one 1/2" and one 1/4"?
Do the plans have the CG marked, or will I need to buid to plans to
find out where it is? I will probably build the original version in
basic form with the outboard to see how it performs. I'm in the
middle of a Glen-L electric launch right now, but I fell in love
with the Sneakeasy lines as soon as I saw them. Dave Whittington
>I guess that leaves the forum open for us to suggest better options.It really wouldn't take much to make the Sneakeasy capable for a bigger inboard but then she'd cease being a Sneakeasy but what the heck building our concepts and ideas is part of being "amateur" builders.
Here are some ideas for the Sneakeasy.
1. Use 1/2" plywood on the side panels and doubled the 1/2" ply on the bottom.
2. Make 4 foot long 2x8 stringers for each bulkhead. Cut these from full width at the center to 2" at each end. Attach these to the bottom of each bulkhead and trim to length. This will create a constant deadrise along her length for a slight vee hull shape. This will strengthen the bottom tremendously especially with the doubled plywood. Use 2x4 chine logs and sheer logs. Double up the bulkheads to 1/2" plywood as well.
3.Double the rise at the bow for a 6 inch draft.
4. Epoxy and glass the joint where the hull bottom panels would meet down the center with as many layers of epoxy and fiberglass tape as your patience would allow.
Technically it wouldn't be a Sneakeasy but it sure would look like one. It will easily double the cost and time to construct but she'd be capable of higher speeds and hard to tell the difference between a stock Sneakeasy. With a 120 HP 4 cylinder like the Mercruiser this version of a Sneakeasy would just plain be fast. I wouldn't doubt she'd approach 40 MPH and I still wouldn't turn much at high speeds.
What a blast to be seen cruising down a river or lake at that speed in a boat that looks like a Sneakeasy. She'd turn heads for sure.
Now back to reality with my own Sneakeasy, 12 MPH hoping for 14MPH with some modifications. That's still fast enough for me since we like to cruise not scream across the lake like a cat with it tail dipped in turpentine.
Jeff
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I guess that leaves the forum open for us to suggest better options.
I can't think of a Bolger planing inboard powerboat in this size-
range. A possibly might be Snow Leopard (BWAOM, V8 powered, 28' x 7')
scaled to about 22' x 5'6" to halve the displacement and power
requirement. Its styling is suitably old-fashioned but it wouldn't be
easy to build -- compound curves everywhere, including the topsides
and deck.
It used to be common to adapt automotive engines to marine use by
mounting them in the boat with the flywheel forward, to keep the
engine low in the boat. The drive was taken off the front of the
engine. There would be no transmission at all: once the engine was
running, the boat would be moving.
Glen-L has a very good book on inboard motor installation. Back-to-
front installations are covered.
Howard
I can't think of a Bolger planing inboard powerboat in this size-
range. A possibly might be Snow Leopard (BWAOM, V8 powered, 28' x 7')
scaled to about 22' x 5'6" to halve the displacement and power
requirement. Its styling is suitably old-fashioned but it wouldn't be
easy to build -- compound curves everywhere, including the topsides
and deck.
It used to be common to adapt automotive engines to marine use by
mounting them in the boat with the flywheel forward, to keep the
engine low in the boat. The drive was taken off the front of the
engine. There would be no transmission at all: once the engine was
running, the boat would be moving.
Glen-L has a very good book on inboard motor installation. Back-to-
front installations are covered.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
> Hi Dave, I'm the one with the Kitchen rudder with the Sneakeasy.
Here's a few of my thoughts on your ideas.
On Oct 8, 2004, at 1:04 PM, Jeff wrote:
engine just ahead of them might work.
to be stronger.
Since I have never seen a Sneakeasy up close and personal my
comments may not be worth much, but I have thought about it a lot.
My thoughts:
put a "real" bottom on it.
mid engine, crew aft just like the classics.
widen it to 5 feet.
Presto you no longer have a Sneakeasy. You have a completely
different boat with a family resemblance.
The conclusion I always come to is:
build a box cutwater Sneakeasy as it was designed
or
design a new boat using the Sneakeasy as inspiration.
hal
> As to losing the shallow draft the biggest problem is the boat design.The box cutwater version should help the handling problem.
> If you add enough weight to drop her down past the designed draft of
> about 3 inches you'll have a boat that handles terrible. The nose on
> a power sharpie should never be buried except when in chop where it
> can power through almost immediately.
> Adding enough weight to handle a small 4 banger with a transmissionThe CG could be problematic. Moving the passengers aft with the
> would add at least 600 lbs. Enough to drop the Sneakeasy another 2 or
> 3 inches and add have some handling problems with center of gravity
> with the weight distribution that high.
engine just ahead of them might work.
> Don't forget the speed issue. Pushing the Sneakeasy past 25 MPH wouldThe box cutwater Sneakeasy may go faster safely but it would have
> be dangerous in handling and structural problems. You'd have to build
> the boat with more rise at the bow, beefed up materials in plywood,
> stringers, etc. to handle the pounding without breaking up. This also
> adds weight making for more changes.
to be stronger.
>All true.
> Finding some way to add a transmission to a small inboard engine like
> my Kawasaki 20 HP would be a much better way. The entire engine and
> drive assemble weighs about what an outboard weighs. You could
> probably push it to 30 HP with an inboard because of the additional
> drag and still be safe enough. Using a traditional rudder setup you
> could leave the Drake tails alone or even modify them to a true
> slipper stern or simply extend the natural sheer line aft to the full
> length of the boat and add a nice flat or curved stern.
Since I have never seen a Sneakeasy up close and personal my
comments may not be worth much, but I have thought about it a lot.
My thoughts:
put a "real" bottom on it.
mid engine, crew aft just like the classics.
widen it to 5 feet.
Presto you no longer have a Sneakeasy. You have a completely
different boat with a family resemblance.
The conclusion I always come to is:
build a box cutwater Sneakeasy as it was designed
or
design a new boat using the Sneakeasy as inspiration.
hal
Hi Dave, I'm the one with the Kitchen rudder with the Sneakeasy. Here's a few of my thoughts on your ideas.
As to losing the shallow draft the biggest problem is the boat design. If you add enough weight to drop her down past the designed draft of about 3 inches you'll have a boat that handles terrible. The nose on a power sharpie should never be buried except when in chop where it can power through almost immediately.
Adding enough weight to handle a small 4 banger with a transmission would add at least 600 lbs. Enough to drop the Sneakeasy another 2 or 3 inches and add have some handling problems with center of gravity with the weight distribution that high.
Don't forget the speed issue. Pushing the Sneakeasy past 25 MPH would be dangerous in handling and structural problems. You'd have to build the boat with more rise at the bow, beefed up materials in plywood, stringers, etc. to handle the pounding without breaking up. This also adds weight making for more changes.
Finding some way to add a transmission to a small inboard engine like my Kawasaki 20 HP would be a much better way. The entire engine and drive assemble weighs about what an outboard weighs. You could probably push it to 30 HP with an inboard because of the additional drag and still be safe enough. Using a traditional rudder setup you could leave the Drake tails alone or even modify them to a true slipper stern or simply extend the natural sheer line aft to the full length of the boat and add a nice flat or curved stern.
Jeff
As to losing the shallow draft the biggest problem is the boat design. If you add enough weight to drop her down past the designed draft of about 3 inches you'll have a boat that handles terrible. The nose on a power sharpie should never be buried except when in chop where it can power through almost immediately.
Adding enough weight to handle a small 4 banger with a transmission would add at least 600 lbs. Enough to drop the Sneakeasy another 2 or 3 inches and add have some handling problems with center of gravity with the weight distribution that high.
Don't forget the speed issue. Pushing the Sneakeasy past 25 MPH would be dangerous in handling and structural problems. You'd have to build the boat with more rise at the bow, beefed up materials in plywood, stringers, etc. to handle the pounding without breaking up. This also adds weight making for more changes.
Finding some way to add a transmission to a small inboard engine like my Kawasaki 20 HP would be a much better way. The entire engine and drive assemble weighs about what an outboard weighs. You could probably push it to 30 HP with an inboard because of the additional drag and still be safe enough. Using a traditional rudder setup you could leave the Drake tails alone or even modify them to a true slipper stern or simply extend the natural sheer line aft to the full length of the boat and add a nice flat or curved stern.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: dwhittington9
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 11:56 AM
Subject: [bolger] Inboard Sneakeasy
Hello all,
Has anyone built or heard of anyone installing a traditional
inboard set-up in a Sneakeasy. I have read the interesting
installation of the Kitchen rudder set-up. I am interested in
information and direction on motor weight limit, placement, prop to
transom dimensions and filling in the transom tails. I will build it
with the outboard if the inboard set-up seems problematic, but I
really prefer a small four cylinder inboard installation. Losing the
shallow draft is not an issue.
Dave Whittington.
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hello all,
Has anyone built or heard of anyone installing a traditional
inboard set-up in a Sneakeasy. I have read the interesting
installation of the Kitchen rudder set-up. I am interested in
information and direction on motor weight limit, placement, prop to
transom dimensions and filling in the transom tails. I will build it
with the outboard if the inboard set-up seems problematic, but I
really prefer a small four cylinder inboard installation. Losing the
shallow draft is not an issue.
Dave Whittington.
Has anyone built or heard of anyone installing a traditional
inboard set-up in a Sneakeasy. I have read the interesting
installation of the Kitchen rudder set-up. I am interested in
information and direction on motor weight limit, placement, prop to
transom dimensions and filling in the transom tails. I will build it
with the outboard if the inboard set-up seems problematic, but I
really prefer a small four cylinder inboard installation. Losing the
shallow draft is not an issue.
Dave Whittington.