Re: [bolger] Re: Scram Pram critique?
It seems to me that the biggest strain on a tow vehicle's drive train comes when you haul the boat out of the water. The only water ballast I've ever messed with was a Sea Pearl, and the drill was to haul the boat and trailer up on dry land and pull the plugs to let the ballast tanks drain. In effect, you had to pull the weight of the ballasted boat up the ramp. If your tow vehicle could handle that task, it should be able to haul the ballasted boat unless you are going through the mountains. I always try to limit my trailer load to about half of the manufacturer's rating.
You might want to reread the capsize essays in Jim's newsletter; I think there was a reference to the fact that an empty Scram Pram was not self righting, but that it would be self righting with a little bit of ballast (somewhat less than the water ballast).
John T
You might want to reread the capsize essays in Jim's newsletter; I think there was a reference to the fact that an empty Scram Pram was not self righting, but that it would be self righting with a little bit of ballast (somewhat less than the water ballast).
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: John Bell
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Scram Pram critique?
I've only seen one on a trailer, (the same one "Mr. Fader"/Don Carron had).
It's a HUGE boat in 16'. I agree with the sentiments that you won't get her
to plane, she's going to be a displacement speed only boat. If I were to
build one, I'd skip the water ballast and put in metal ballast instead. The
difference in trailer weight between dumpable water ballast and permanent
metal ballast on a boat this size isn't a big deal, IMO. The wind resistance
of this block of a boat on a trailer is going to play a bigger role on the
road than the mass.
I like the boat a lot, despite it's unusual aesthetics. I'd like to sail one
sometime, though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Paquette" <robertpaquette@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Scram Pram critique?
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark mirski <anshin@w...> wrote:
>
> is there anyone else on the board that has experience with the Scram Pram?
I would appreciate their input also. Since I intend to build a Scram Pram,
Mr Fader's critique was very apropos.
>
> Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls
>
> > Mr Fader
> >
> > Thank you for your generous reply.
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Mark Mirski
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I've only seen one on a trailer, (the same one "Mr. Fader"/Don Carron had).
It's a HUGE boat in 16'. I agree with the sentiments that you won't get her
to plane, she's going to be a displacement speed only boat. If I were to
build one, I'd skip the water ballast and put in metal ballast instead. The
difference in trailer weight between dumpable water ballast and permanent
metal ballast on a boat this size isn't a big deal, IMO. The wind resistance
of this block of a boat on a trailer is going to play a bigger role on the
road than the mass.
I like the boat a lot, despite it's unusual aesthetics. I'd like to sail one
sometime, though.
It's a HUGE boat in 16'. I agree with the sentiments that you won't get her
to plane, she's going to be a displacement speed only boat. If I were to
build one, I'd skip the water ballast and put in metal ballast instead. The
difference in trailer weight between dumpable water ballast and permanent
metal ballast on a boat this size isn't a big deal, IMO. The wind resistance
of this block of a boat on a trailer is going to play a bigger role on the
road than the mass.
I like the boat a lot, despite it's unusual aesthetics. I'd like to sail one
sometime, though.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Paquette" <robertpaquette@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Scram Pram critique?
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark mirski <anshin@w...> wrote:
>
> is there anyone else on the board that has experience with the Scram Pram?
I would appreciate their input also. Since I intend to build a Scram Pram,
Mr Fader's critique was very apropos.
>
> Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls
>
> > Mr Fader
> >
> > Thank you for your generous reply.
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Mark Mirski
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark mirski <anshin@w...> wrote:
is there anyone else on the board that has experience with the Scram Pram? I would appreciate their input also. Since I intend to build a Scram Pram, Mr Fader's critique was very apropos.
Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls
> Mr Fader
>
> Thank you for your generous reply.
> Respectfully,
>
> Mark Mirski
Mr Fader
Thank you for your generous reply.
Respectfully,
Mark Mirski
toobwiz wrote:
Thank you for your generous reply.
Respectfully,
Mark Mirski
toobwiz wrote:
>Mark,
>
>Don't think for a minute that I was being negative toward the Scram; it is a great design. It is unbelievably roomy, well set up for camp/cruising, comfortable as a motor launch, and a creditable sailer. The little foredeck is large enough to set a chair on for casual fishing or serious drinking :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
A couple of ideas that might be useful:
1) I wonder whether, instead of what could be called integral
ballast tanks, the ballast water could be held in those flexible
neoprene tanks used for fuel or water. They would sit inside the
plywood enclosure originally intended for the ballast. This would
allow plywood lids that could be removed for airing, inspection or
repainting. It would be a more expensive option and the tanks might
not quite as easy to fill and empty.
2) I learnt the hard way -- breaking a few of them -- how to make
leeboards strong enough. Plywood is not a good material because only
about half its thickness has the grain running the right way to
provide any strength. I tried Douglas fir: it broke. Then I tried two
pieces of hardwood dowelled together. It broke at one of the dowels.
Finally I made one that lasted out of two pieces of straight-grained
hardwood (a eucalyptus called woollybutt) joined at the edges of the
pieces by a glued tongue and groove joint. The board would have been
about 15" x 1-1/2" x 6', fitted to my 20' day-sailing trimaran. With
a 28' mast, 280 sq. ft. of sail and two on trapeze I guess there was
a bit more side force than that generated by a Scram, but the
principle is the same. These days a skin of carbon-epoxy over almost
anything would be the way to go, I suppose.
Howard
1) I wonder whether, instead of what could be called integral
ballast tanks, the ballast water could be held in those flexible
neoprene tanks used for fuel or water. They would sit inside the
plywood enclosure originally intended for the ballast. This would
allow plywood lids that could be removed for airing, inspection or
repainting. It would be a more expensive option and the tanks might
not quite as easy to fill and empty.
2) I learnt the hard way -- breaking a few of them -- how to make
leeboards strong enough. Plywood is not a good material because only
about half its thickness has the grain running the right way to
provide any strength. I tried Douglas fir: it broke. Then I tried two
pieces of hardwood dowelled together. It broke at one of the dowels.
Finally I made one that lasted out of two pieces of straight-grained
hardwood (a eucalyptus called woollybutt) joined at the edges of the
pieces by a glued tongue and groove joint. The board would have been
about 15" x 1-1/2" x 6', fitted to my 20' day-sailing trimaran. With
a 28' mast, 280 sq. ft. of sail and two on trapeze I guess there was
a bit more side force than that generated by a Scram, but the
principle is the same. These days a skin of carbon-epoxy over almost
anything would be the way to go, I suppose.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, toobwiz <toobwiz@k...> wrote:
>
> On mine, the water ballast tanks rotted out, taking the bottom with
them. W&T built her very quickly and there were voids in the
galssing inside the tanks. I'd recommend making certain that glass
*matting* (not cloth, or matting followed by cloth; matting grabs
plywood far better than cloth) and epoxy covered every tiny bit of
the tanks. I didn't use the water ballast, but by all accounts, it
works a treat.
>
> make the leeboard a foot longer than the plan shows, and with a
continued expansion; both Jim and W&T say the designed size isn't
sufficient for best sailing. Also, it wouldn't hurt to make it
thicker; W&T broke the original.
Birdwatcher type boats tend to be displacement hulls. They will not plane with the power provided by sails and may not plane under outboard motor power.
If you want a planing boat, suggest you look at Petesboat or Bolgers Fast Moter Sailer.
Note that both the boats mentioned will plane with large (40 hp +) motors. I have a little experience with planing sailbots (Windmills) which involve very light hulls which require acrobatics to keep them upright. I think it unlikely that you can find a cruising, Nirdwatcher type boat which will plane under sail.
John T
If you want a planing boat, suggest you look at Petesboat or Bolgers Fast Moter Sailer.
Note that both the boats mentioned will plane with large (40 hp +) motors. I have a little experience with planing sailbots (Windmills) which involve very light hulls which require acrobatics to keep them upright. I think it unlikely that you can find a cruising, Nirdwatcher type boat which will plane under sail.
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark mirski
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:44 AM
Subject: [bolger] Scram Pram critique?
To Mr. John Fader
I have the plans to build a Scram Pram.
Being that you have had one I was wondering if you might give a critique
and mention pros and cons to sailing and motoring a Scram Pram.
Would you recommend a different birdwatcher design?
Respectfully,
Mark Mirskianshin@...
===
john_fader wrote:
>Robert,
>
>not a hope. The Scram is just as bad a shape, maybe worse, for planing
>as the keel boats you are used to.
>
>I had a Scram. With a 2 hp, it would go about 4 knots. With a 6 hp,
>about 5 :-)
>
>Cheers/Fader
>
>
>
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 Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mark,
Don't think for a minute that I was being negative toward the Scram; it is a great design. It is unbelievably roomy, well set up for camp/cruising, comfortable as a motor launch, and a creditable sailer. The little foredeck is large enough to set a chair on for casual fishing or serious drinking :-)
Now, I never sailed it, but Wil * Tim, in TX did and they found it a good sailer. I couldn't afford to buy the sail when I got the boat, and I never got around to building a sailing rig for her. Jim M. has drawn about 3 rigs for the Scram, and if you live in areas of light wind, I'd recommend the big balanced lug, even though Jim favors one abt. 30 ft^2 smaller. If you have strong and steady winds, the split lug rig would be better and likely more fun as well.
On mine, the water ballast tanks rotted out, taking the bottom with them. W&T built her very quickly and there were voids in the galssing inside the tanks. I'd recommend making certain that glass *matting* (not cloth, or matting followed by cloth; matting grabs plywood far better than cloth) and epoxy covered every tiny bit of the tanks. I didn't use the water ballast, but by all accounts, it works a treat.
One final suggestion.. make the leeboard a foot longer than the plan shows, and with a continued expansion; both Jim and W&T say the designed size isn't sufficient for best sailing. Also, it wouldn't hurt to make it thicker; W&T broke the original.
Good design if you're looking for that sort of boat.
Cheers/Fader
*/Mark sez:/*
I have the plans to build a Scram Pram.
Being that you have had one I was wondering if you might give a critique
and mention pros and cons to sailing and motoring a Scram Pram.
Would you recommend a different birdwatcher design?
Don't think for a minute that I was being negative toward the Scram; it is a great design. It is unbelievably roomy, well set up for camp/cruising, comfortable as a motor launch, and a creditable sailer. The little foredeck is large enough to set a chair on for casual fishing or serious drinking :-)
Now, I never sailed it, but Wil * Tim, in TX did and they found it a good sailer. I couldn't afford to buy the sail when I got the boat, and I never got around to building a sailing rig for her. Jim M. has drawn about 3 rigs for the Scram, and if you live in areas of light wind, I'd recommend the big balanced lug, even though Jim favors one abt. 30 ft^2 smaller. If you have strong and steady winds, the split lug rig would be better and likely more fun as well.
On mine, the water ballast tanks rotted out, taking the bottom with them. W&T built her very quickly and there were voids in the galssing inside the tanks. I'd recommend making certain that glass *matting* (not cloth, or matting followed by cloth; matting grabs plywood far better than cloth) and epoxy covered every tiny bit of the tanks. I didn't use the water ballast, but by all accounts, it works a treat.
One final suggestion.. make the leeboard a foot longer than the plan shows, and with a continued expansion; both Jim and W&T say the designed size isn't sufficient for best sailing. Also, it wouldn't hurt to make it thicker; W&T broke the original.
Good design if you're looking for that sort of boat.
Cheers/Fader
*/Mark sez:/*
I have the plans to build a Scram Pram.
Being that you have had one I was wondering if you might give a critique
and mention pros and cons to sailing and motoring a Scram Pram.
Would you recommend a different birdwatcher design?
> The Scram is just as bad a shape, maybe worse, for planingTo go into a tad more detail, the problem is the rocker in the
> as the keel boats you are used to.
bottom. For a boat to plane, it must have substantial sections of
the bottom that are quite flat, i.e. look like straight lines in the
plans (side views, technically referred to as profiles). You can see
the difference if you compare Michalak's Campjon to the Scram Pram.
Mostly, if you want a small boat that sails, you are limited by hull
speed, even under power, but if you really want a 10kt powerboat
that can sail, you can get it. It may not sail quite as well as pure
sailboat, or may be a fancier boat than you hand in mind, and it may
be more complicated to build. The most obvious examples would be
Bolger's Fast Motorsailers, and his new Fast Brick.
You would be looking for planing sailboat lines. Generally speaking,
a boat that is flat-bottomed or very shallow V-bottom, and straight
lines for the aft 2/3 of the length.
There is another path which is a much longer boat. Pete Culler
designed a version of the Sharpstown Barge at 24'. There is a
certain amount "why not use a small inexpensive motor and go slow"
in the verbiage about it, but one of the pictures clearly shows it
planing. If the long boat is light enough, then the rocker in the
bottom will not be deep enough to keep the boat from planing.
You might also be able to find something you like if you look
through the 20th century's large pile of semi-dory designs. Dories
had fairly straight bottoms, and some of the variants had enough
width and length.
Peter
To Mr. John Fader
I have the plans to build a Scram Pram.
Being that you have had one I was wondering if you might give a critique
and mention pros and cons to sailing and motoring a Scram Pram.
Would you recommend a different birdwatcher design?
Respectfully,
Mark Mirskianshin@...
===
john_fader wrote:
I have the plans to build a Scram Pram.
Being that you have had one I was wondering if you might give a critique
and mention pros and cons to sailing and motoring a Scram Pram.
Would you recommend a different birdwatcher design?
Respectfully,
Mark Mirskianshin@...
===
john_fader wrote:
>Robert,
>
>not a hope. The Scram is just as bad a shape, maybe worse, for planing
>as the keel boats you are used to.
>
>I had a Scram. With a 2 hp, it would go about 4 knots. With a 6 hp,
>about 5 :-)
>
>Cheers/Fader
>
>
>
Robert,
not a hope. The Scram is just as bad a shape, maybe worse, for planing
as the keel boats you are used to.
I had a Scram. With a 2 hp, it would go about 4 knots. With a 6 hp,
about 5 :-)
Cheers/Fader
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette" <robertpaquette@o...>
wrote:
faster than hull speed. I plan to build a boat such as Michalak`s
Scram Pramhttp://www.duckworksmagazine.com/store/plans/jim/
scram_pram/index.htm
under power, it will plane, permitting me to safely travel, say 10
knots?
not a hope. The Scram is just as bad a shape, maybe worse, for planing
as the keel boats you are used to.
I had a Scram. With a 2 hp, it would go about 4 knots. With a 6 hp,
about 5 :-)
Cheers/Fader
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette" <robertpaquette@o...>
wrote:
>Since these are displacement hulls, most of the time they cannot go
> My only sailing experience has been on sloops with weighted keels.
faster than hull speed. I plan to build a boat such as Michalak`s
Scram Pramhttp://www.duckworksmagazine.com/store/plans/jim/
scram_pram/index.htm
>say can I expect to easily bring the boat on plane? Can I assume that
> Under sail, can I expect to go faster than hull speed? That's to
under power, it will plane, permitting me to safely travel, say 10
knots?
>
> Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls
This gives you an idea of how much speed you could expect from Scram.
It's 16' long and the Piccup is 11', so you could expect its speed to
be that of the Piccup multiplied by the square root of 16/11. That's
about 20% faster or 4.8 kt. And very likely it's less capable of
surfing down a wave.
Scram is the wrong shape to plane under sail or power.
Howard
Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "captreed48" <captreed@s...> wrote:
It's 16' long and the Piccup is 11', so you could expect its speed to
be that of the Piccup multiplied by the square root of 16/11. That's
about 20% faster or 4.8 kt. And very likely it's less capable of
surfing down a wave.
Scram is the wrong shape to plane under sail or power.
Howard
Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "captreed48" <captreed@s...> wrote:
>say
>
> >
> > Under sail, can I expect to go faster than hull speed? That's to
> say can I expect to easily bring the boat on plane? Can I assume
> that under power, it will plane, permitting me to safely travel,
> 10 knots?4
> >
> > Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> I sail a modified Piccup Pram with an expected hull speed of around
> knots. A couple of days ago I had it up to 6 knots surfing on the
> face of a swell at the harbor entrance. I've never gotten it to
> plane in flat water.
>say can I expect to easily bring the boat on plane? Can I assume
> Under sail, can I expect to go faster than hull speed? That's to
that under power, it will plane, permitting me to safely travel, say
10 knots?
>Hi Robert,
> Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls
I sail a modified Piccup Pram with an expected hull speed of around 4
knots. A couple of days ago I had it up to 6 knots surfing on the
face of a swell at the harbor entrance. I've never gotten it to
plane in flat water.
Reed
My only sailing experience has been on sloops with weighted keels. Since these are displacement hulls, most of the time they cannot go faster than hull speed. I plan to build a boat such as Michalak`s Scram Pramhttp://www.duckworksmagazine.com/store/plans/jim/scram_pram/index.htm
Under sail, can I expect to go faster than hull speed? That's to say can I expect to easily bring the boat on plane? Can I assume that under power, it will plane, permitting me to safely travel, say 10 knots?
Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls
Under sail, can I expect to go faster than hull speed? That's to say can I expect to easily bring the boat on plane? Can I assume that under power, it will plane, permitting me to safely travel, say 10 knots?
Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls