Re: PB - Cruising CAT
Mine were a small racing cat and a 30ft tri, so didn't really compare.
But I sail with a friend in his 27ft racing/cruising cat. I don't
prefer either, both have given memorable sails. I especially remember
swooping through a monohull fleet in the cat, gybing from side to side
under a big reaching spinnaker...sheer bliss!
DonB
But I sail with a friend in his 27ft racing/cruising cat. I don't
prefer either, both have given memorable sails. I especially remember
swooping through a monohull fleet in the cat, gybing from side to side
under a big reaching spinnaker...sheer bliss!
DonB
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
>
> Which one did you prefer the cat or the tri. Where they both same
> length /size.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
> >
> > I have owned and sailed both Todd, though not with sharpie hulls
> > DonB
> >
> > Wow I'm ammazed that DonB
> > > would even try and compare a cat to a tri!
> > >
> > > Todd
> > > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Even trimarans with much narrower (on the bottom) flat
> bottomed
> > > floats
> > > > > pound uncomfortably when going to windward in lumpy
> conditions.
> > > > > I imagine the Bolger cat would be fun for messing about in
> > > sheltered
> > > > > waters, but that would be about it.
> > > > > DonB
> > > >
> > > > Mr Bolger has seculated that a flat bottom may pound less than
> a
> > > slight V
> > > > because of the chussionng effect of the air compresses
> between
> > > boat and
> > > > water just before impact I wonder how thing might effect
> this
> > > craft?
> > > > jeffery
Which one did you prefer the cat or the tri. Where they both same
length /size.
length /size.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
>
> I have owned and sailed both Todd, though not with sharpie hulls
> DonB
>
> Wow I'm ammazed that DonB
> > would even try and compare a cat to a tri!
> >
> > Todd
> > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Even trimarans with much narrower (on the bottom) flat
bottomed
> > floats
> > > > pound uncomfortably when going to windward in lumpy
conditions.
> > > > I imagine the Bolger cat would be fun for messing about in
> > sheltered
> > > > waters, but that would be about it.
> > > > DonB
> > >
> > > Mr Bolger has seculated that a flat bottom may pound less than
a
> > slight V
> > > because of the chussionng effect of the air compresses
between
> > boat and
> > > water just before impact I wonder how thing might effect
this
> > craft?
> > > jeffery
I have owned and sailed both Todd, though not with sharpie hulls
DonB
Wow I'm ammazed that DonB
DonB
Wow I'm ammazed that DonB
> would even try and compare a cat to a tri!
>
> Todd
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Even trimarans with much narrower (on the bottom) flat bottomed
> floats
> > > pound uncomfortably when going to windward in lumpy conditions.
> > > I imagine the Bolger cat would be fun for messing about in
> sheltered
> > > waters, but that would be about it.
> > > DonB
> >
> > Mr Bolger has seculated that a flat bottom may pound less than a
> slight V
> > because of the chussionng effect of the air compresses between
> boat and
> > water just before impact I wonder how thing might effect this
> craft?
> > jeffery
Sure random and sudden jolts what percentage of time sailing and
in what particular condition and with what frequency? With a 14.5/1
length to beam ratio a good sharpie mono hull is 7/1. shouldn't be
all that bad. With modern epoxy can be built strong enough and still
light, to handle 10% of nasty choppy weather condition and enjoy
the other 90% of fair weather sailing.
Todd
in what particular condition and with what frequency? With a 14.5/1
length to beam ratio a good sharpie mono hull is 7/1. shouldn't be
all that bad. With modern epoxy can be built strong enough and still
light, to handle 10% of nasty choppy weather condition and enjoy
the other 90% of fair weather sailing.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
>
> I find that hard to imagine, because the waves are not a perfectly
> even, flat plane. I am sure in the real world, there will be random
> and sudden slaps and jolts. Bolger says this himself in his notes
> about the Auckland Cat, which is a similar but larger cofiguration.
> DonB
>
>
Also trimaran amas are more easily unweighted ( nature of a tri)
more tippy than a cat. Which would cause FULL ROUND, U'ED, FLAT amas
to pound except possibly a narrowing V. Wow I'm ammazed that DonB
would even try and compare a cat to a tri!
Todd
more tippy than a cat. Which would cause FULL ROUND, U'ED, FLAT amas
to pound except possibly a narrowing V. Wow I'm ammazed that DonB
would even try and compare a cat to a tri!
Todd
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:floats
> >
> > Even trimarans with much narrower (on the bottom) flat bottomed
> > pound uncomfortably when going to windward in lumpy conditions.sheltered
> > I imagine the Bolger cat would be fun for messing about in
> > waters, but that would be about it.slight V
> > DonB
>
> Mr Bolger has seculated that a flat bottom may pound less than a
> because of the chussionng effect of the air compresses betweenboat and
> water just before impact I wonder how thing might effect thiscraft?
> jeffery
I find that hard to imagine, because the waves are not a perfectly
even, flat plane. I am sure in the real world, there will be random
and sudden slaps and jolts. Bolger says this himself in his notes
about the Auckland Cat, which is a similar but larger cofiguration.
DonB
even, flat plane. I am sure in the real world, there will be random
and sudden slaps and jolts. Bolger says this himself in his notes
about the Auckland Cat, which is a similar but larger cofiguration.
DonB
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "byb6161" <seafox@x> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
> >
> > Even trimarans with much narrower (on the bottom) flat bottomed floats
> > pound uncomfortably when going to windward in lumpy conditions.
> > I imagine the Bolger cat would be fun for messing about in sheltered
> > waters, but that would be about it.
> > DonB
>
> Mr Bolger has seculated that a flat bottom may pound less than a
slight V
> because of the chussionng effect of the air compresses between boat
and
> water just before impact I wonder how thing might effect this craft?
> jeffery
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
because of the chussionng effect of the air compresses between boat and
water just before impact I wonder how thing might effect this craft?
jeffery
>Mr Bolger has seculated that a flat bottom may pound less than a slight V
> Even trimarans with much narrower (on the bottom) flat bottomed floats
> pound uncomfortably when going to windward in lumpy conditions.
> I imagine the Bolger cat would be fun for messing about in sheltered
> waters, but that would be about it.
> DonB
because of the chussionng effect of the air compresses between boat and
water just before impact I wonder how thing might effect this craft?
jeffery
Maybe, but for a sailing catamaran, we would be comparing no deadrise
with a U-shaped bottom, or sewer-shaped, if you like.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "byb6161" <seafox@x> wrote:> Mr Bolger
has seculated that a flat bottom may pound less than a slight V
with a U-shaped bottom, or sewer-shaped, if you like.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "byb6161" <seafox@x> wrote:> Mr Bolger
has seculated that a flat bottom may pound less than a slight V
> because of the chussionng effect of the air compresses betweenboat and
> water just before impact
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
because of the chussionng effect of the air compresses between boat and
water just before impact I wonder how thing might effect this craft?
jeffery
>Mr Bolger has seculated that a flat bottom may pound less than a slight V
> Even trimarans with much narrower (on the bottom) flat bottomed floats
> pound uncomfortably when going to windward in lumpy conditions.
> I imagine the Bolger cat would be fun for messing about in sheltered
> waters, but that would be about it.
> DonB
because of the chussionng effect of the air compresses between boat and
water just before impact I wonder how thing might effect this craft?
jeffery
They built the cat, got divorced, Pete was last seen in South America.
The boat is called China Moon and there is or was a picture on the web
of her. Annie occasionally shows up on the Yahoo junk rigs group.
HJ
graeme19121984 wrote:
The boat is called China Moon and there is or was a picture on the web
of her. Annie occasionally shows up on the Yahoo junk rigs group.
HJ
graeme19121984 wrote:
>Annie & Pete Hill of the Benford sailing dory "Badger"
>and "Voyaging on a Small Income" fame have reputedly sold "Badger"
>and are in RSA building a large cruising Wharram-esque catamaran.
>This, if true ( I've seen it & pics on www), is a big vote for cat
>cruising ( that book sends many down to the sea in a monohull ).I
>note in his books, Tom F Jones, seems to always come back to
>cruising cats.
>
>Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
I think the Double Eagle is a lot bigger project, the cabin area is huge.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>> Would the group care to
>>comment on this one -
>>
>>
>
>Roughly of the same scale as the Bolger catamaran
>Double Eagle.
>
>
>
>>Can anyone tell if the tween hull connections are crossbeams or a solid box
>>connection,
>>
>>
>
>The drawing shows two beams at deck level, and two struts
>lower down. But, in my opinion, they are shown too sketchy,
>and wouldn't hold up to the racking forces without more design.
>
>
>
>>What about the rig ?
>>
>>
>
>Of the type of Rigs 10 and 11 in Bolgers book, staysails.
>One thing I notice, is that they require lots of spreader space
>in the stern to get good geometry for the backstays. The
>wide with of catamaran seems well suited for reducing the
>tensile stresses in the stays.
>
>
>
>>Has she ever appeared in MAIB ?
>>
>>
>
>It is not listed in our database, which has a pretty good
>listing of the Bolger designs published in MAIB, so
>probably no.
>
>My guest is that it isn't a completed design, but rather
>a cartoon, perhaps made in the same time frame as
>Double Eagle, maybe a precurser to Double Eagle.
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>
At least DE will settle a few arguments about PCB catamaran designs.
The sharpie is Skillygalee.
Howard
The sharpie is Skillygalee.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Spoering" <spoering@e...> wrote:
> Hi Bruce - Thought this might help with info re: Double Eagle ----
> websitehttp://www.thegreatsea.homestead.com/and ckick on
the pages
> listed on the left of the sharpie photo.
Hi Bruce -http://www.thegreatsea.homestead.com/here's the website
for Bolgers' "DOUBLE EAGLE" now being built in Alaska.
Aloha - Jack Spoering - Ft Lauderdale, Fl
for Bolgers' "DOUBLE EAGLE" now being built in Alaska.
Aloha - Jack Spoering - Ft Lauderdale, Fl
> [Original Message]solid box
> From: Bruce Hallman <bruce@...>
> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 12/3/2004 12:43:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: PB - Cruising CAT
>
>
> > Would the group care to
> > comment on this one -
>
> Roughly of the same scale as the Bolger catamaran
> Double Eagle.
>
> > Can anyone tell if the tween hull connections are crossbeams or a
> > connection,(978) 282-1349
>
> The drawing shows two beams at deck level, and two struts
> lower down. But, in my opinion, they are shown too sketchy,
> and wouldn't hold up to the racking forces without more design.
>
> > What about the rig ?
>
> Of the type of Rigs 10 and 11 in Bolgers book, staysails.
> One thing I notice, is that they require lots of spreader space
> in the stern to get good geometry for the backstays. The
> wide with of catamaran seems well suited for reducing the
> tensile stresses in the stays.
>
> > Has she ever appeared in MAIB ?
>
> It is not listed in our database, which has a pretty good
> listing of the Bolger designs published in MAIB, so
> probably no.
>
> My guest is that it isn't a completed design, but rather
> a cartoon, perhaps made in the same time frame as
> Double Eagle, maybe a precurser to Double Eagle.
>
>
>
> 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:
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi Bruce - Thought this might help with info re: Double Eagle ------
She's being buld in Alaska (weather calls for a rather short building
season) and another in a location I can't recall. Check out this
websitehttp://www.thegreatsea.homestead.com/and ckick on the pages
listed on the left of the sharpie photo.
Aloha - Jack Spoering - Ft Lauderdale, Fl
She's being buld in Alaska (weather calls for a rather short building
season) and another in a location I can't recall. Check out this
websitehttp://www.thegreatsea.homestead.com/and ckick on the pages
listed on the left of the sharpie photo.
Aloha - Jack Spoering - Ft Lauderdale, Fl
> [Original Message]solid box
> From: Bruce Hallman <bruce@...>
> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 12/3/2004 12:43:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: PB - Cruising CAT
>
>
> > Would the group care to
> > comment on this one -
>
> Roughly of the same scale as the Bolger catamaran
> Double Eagle.
>
> > Can anyone tell if the tween hull connections are crossbeams or a
> > connection,(978) 282-1349
>
> The drawing shows two beams at deck level, and two struts
> lower down. But, in my opinion, they are shown too sketchy,
> and wouldn't hold up to the racking forces without more design.
>
> > What about the rig ?
>
> Of the type of Rigs 10 and 11 in Bolgers book, staysails.
> One thing I notice, is that they require lots of spreader space
> in the stern to get good geometry for the backstays. The
> wide with of catamaran seems well suited for reducing the
> tensile stresses in the stays.
>
> > Has she ever appeared in MAIB ?
>
> It is not listed in our database, which has a pretty good
> listing of the Bolger designs published in MAIB, so
> probably no.
>
> My guest is that it isn't a completed design, but rather
> a cartoon, perhaps made in the same time frame as
> Double Eagle, maybe a precurser to Double Eagle.
>
>
>
> 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:
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Opps, I meant Harmann Otto Sorry about that . Brain fade ........
Todd
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
>
>
> Look at the latest article on duck works magazine. There are two
> cruising cats with junk rigs one by OMMAR and the other by Gary
Lepak.
> Self designed and built. Both great articles. Both with real
> experience cruising open waters with there junk rigged cats.
>
> Todd
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
> <stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> >
> > Junk-rigged too! It seems Annie Hill has had experience in
cruising
> > cats. According to a www book review, she " doubled the Atlantic
in
> a
> > 28 ft Wharram catamaran in her 21st year".
> >
> > Howard
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984"
> <graeme19121984@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Annie & Pete Hill of the Benford sailing dory "Badger"
> > > and "Voyaging on a Small Income" fame have reputedly
> sold "Badger"
> > > and are in RSA building a large cruising Wharram-esque
catamaran.
Look at the latest article on duck works magazine. There are two
cruising cats with junk rigs one by OMMAR and the other by Gary Lepak.
Self designed and built. Both great articles. Both with real
experience cruising open waters with there junk rigged cats.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
cruising cats with junk rigs one by OMMAR and the other by Gary Lepak.
Self designed and built. Both great articles. Both with real
experience cruising open waters with there junk rigged cats.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
>a
> Junk-rigged too! It seems Annie Hill has had experience in cruising
> cats. According to a www book review, she " doubled the Atlantic in
> 28 ft Wharram catamaran in her 21st year".<graeme19121984@y...>
>
> Howard
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984"
> wrote:sold "Badger"
> >
> > Annie & Pete Hill of the Benford sailing dory "Badger"
> > and "Voyaging on a Small Income" fame have reputedly
> > and are in RSA building a large cruising Wharram-esque catamaran.
Junk-rigged too! It seems Annie Hill has had experience in cruising
cats. According to a www book review, she " doubled the Atlantic in a
28 ft Wharram catamaran in her 21st year".
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:
cats. According to a www book review, she " doubled the Atlantic in a
28 ft Wharram catamaran in her 21st year".
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:
>
> Annie & Pete Hill of the Benford sailing dory "Badger"
> and "Voyaging on a Small Income" fame have reputedly sold "Badger"
> and are in RSA building a large cruising Wharram-esque catamaran.
Annie & Pete Hill of the Benford sailing dory "Badger"
and "Voyaging on a Small Income" fame have reputedly sold "Badger"
and are in RSA building a large cruising Wharram-esque catamaran.
This, if true ( I've seen it & pics on www), is a big vote for cat
cruising ( that book sends many down to the sea in a monohull ).I
note in his books, Tom F Jones, seems to always come back to
cruising cats.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
and "Voyaging on a Small Income" fame have reputedly sold "Badger"
and are in RSA building a large cruising Wharram-esque catamaran.
This, if true ( I've seen it & pics on www), is a big vote for cat
cruising ( that book sends many down to the sea in a monohull ).I
note in his books, Tom F Jones, seems to always come back to
cruising cats.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
>comparatively
> Sailing at 5 or 10 degrees of heel would seem to be safer and more
> comfortable than at, say, 30 degrees. But some say the
> jerky motion of a catamaran is unpleasant and fatigue-inducing.I've
> had no experience with large sailing cats in a big sea but haveocean,
> experienced something like it in a 20' power cat in the open
> where I would have felt more comfortable in the 16' aluminummonohull
> runabout I was used to.inducing
>
> Not sure whether multi- or monohull sailboats are worse at
> seasickness. Neither would be as bad as a typical displacementhave
> monohull powerboat; a displacement-speed power catamaran would
> to be better.<graeme19121984@y...>
>
> Howard
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984"
> wrote:crew
> >
> > Also:
> > Shallow draft;
> > Stable living /working platform (comfort minimises unseaworthy
> > fatigue);to
> > Somewhere else to visit ( longterm cruisers say leaving one hull
> > visit the other is psychologically refreshing).
Sailing at 5 or 10 degrees of heel would seem to be safer and more
comfortable than at, say, 30 degrees. But some say the comparatively
jerky motion of a catamaran is unpleasant and fatigue-inducing. I've
had no experience with large sailing cats in a big sea but have
experienced something like it in a 20' power cat in the open ocean,
where I would have felt more comfortable in the 16' aluminum monohull
runabout I was used to.
Not sure whether multi- or monohull sailboats are worse at inducing
seasickness. Neither would be as bad as a typical displacement
monohull powerboat; a displacement-speed power catamaran would have
to be better.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:
comfortable than at, say, 30 degrees. But some say the comparatively
jerky motion of a catamaran is unpleasant and fatigue-inducing. I've
had no experience with large sailing cats in a big sea but have
experienced something like it in a 20' power cat in the open ocean,
where I would have felt more comfortable in the 16' aluminum monohull
runabout I was used to.
Not sure whether multi- or monohull sailboats are worse at inducing
seasickness. Neither would be as bad as a typical displacement
monohull powerboat; a displacement-speed power catamaran would have
to be better.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:
>
> Also:
> Shallow draft;
> Stable living /working platform (comfort minimises unseaworthy crew
> fatigue);
> Somewhere else to visit ( longterm cruisers say leaving one hull to
> visit the other is psychologically refreshing).
Also:
Shallow draft;
Stable living /working platform (comfort minimises unseaworthy crew
fatigue);
Somewhere else to visit ( longterm cruisers say leaving one hull to
visit the other is psychologically refreshing).
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
Shallow draft;
Stable living /working platform (comfort minimises unseaworthy crew
fatigue);
Somewhere else to visit ( longterm cruisers say leaving one hull to
visit the other is psychologically refreshing).
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> As we no longer need to build boats out of logs, speed is the mainwrote:
> reason for us to build sailing catamarans.
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Spoering" <spoering@e...>
> > Would the group care to
> > comment on this one
You asked for it...
What is the point of a catamaran? Like most inventions, they are the
child of necessity, The first ones were built by people who had
access to large trees but only stone axes or adzes to shape and
hollow them; i.e. they couldn't have built a planked boat like a
Viking longship.
The western world took up the idea as a way of sailing faster.
Sailing monohulls need to have either fixed or moveable (the crew)
ballast to hold them upright. This makes them heavy, limiting them to
what is known as hull speed, at least in sizes over about 20'. A hull
that is narrow for its length (about 10:1 or more) and fairly light
can be made to travel faster than hull speed if there is sufficient
driving force. The way to do this with sails is to provide the
necessary stability by linking it with fairly long arms (outriggers
or crossbeams or a bridge-deck) to another long narrow hull, thus
producing a catamaran or proa or 2/3 of a trimaran.
As we no longer need to build boats out of logs, speed is the main
reason for us to build sailing catamarans. But for them to be fast,
they need to have long narrow hulls. I can't see how the 40' PCB
design we've been discussing could possibly exceed hull speed; the
l/b ratio of the hulls is about 5.5:1. It might be a little faster
than a conventional ballasted monohull (it won't plane), but not
much, and probably not as fast as, say, a 60' hull using the same
amount of material as the two 40-footer's hulls. It would not be self-
righting and, as Bruce H. has indicated, would need a lot more to tie
the hulls together than the drawing indicates.
Howard
What is the point of a catamaran? Like most inventions, they are the
child of necessity, The first ones were built by people who had
access to large trees but only stone axes or adzes to shape and
hollow them; i.e. they couldn't have built a planked boat like a
Viking longship.
The western world took up the idea as a way of sailing faster.
Sailing monohulls need to have either fixed or moveable (the crew)
ballast to hold them upright. This makes them heavy, limiting them to
what is known as hull speed, at least in sizes over about 20'. A hull
that is narrow for its length (about 10:1 or more) and fairly light
can be made to travel faster than hull speed if there is sufficient
driving force. The way to do this with sails is to provide the
necessary stability by linking it with fairly long arms (outriggers
or crossbeams or a bridge-deck) to another long narrow hull, thus
producing a catamaran or proa or 2/3 of a trimaran.
As we no longer need to build boats out of logs, speed is the main
reason for us to build sailing catamarans. But for them to be fast,
they need to have long narrow hulls. I can't see how the 40' PCB
design we've been discussing could possibly exceed hull speed; the
l/b ratio of the hulls is about 5.5:1. It might be a little faster
than a conventional ballasted monohull (it won't plane), but not
much, and probably not as fast as, say, a 60' hull using the same
amount of material as the two 40-footer's hulls. It would not be self-
righting and, as Bruce H. has indicated, would need a lot more to tie
the hulls together than the drawing indicates.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Spoering" <spoering@e...> wrote:
> Would the group care to
> comment on this one
> Would the group care toRoughly of the same scale as the Bolger catamaran
> comment on this one -
Double Eagle.
> Can anyone tell if the tween hull connections are crossbeams or a solid boxThe drawing shows two beams at deck level, and two struts
> connection,
lower down. But, in my opinion, they are shown too sketchy,
and wouldn't hold up to the racking forces without more design.
> What about the rig ?Of the type of Rigs 10 and 11 in Bolgers book, staysails.
One thing I notice, is that they require lots of spreader space
in the stern to get good geometry for the backstays. The
wide with of catamaran seems well suited for reducing the
tensile stresses in the stays.
> Has she ever appeared in MAIB ?It is not listed in our database, which has a pretty good
listing of the Bolger designs published in MAIB, so
probably no.
My guest is that it isn't a completed design, but rather
a cartoon, perhaps made in the same time frame as
Double Eagle, maybe a precurser to Double Eagle.
Hi Martin -
Yes --- This is the PB cat that I was writing about earlier this week. I
had the Derek Harvey book (borrowed by someone) but the drawing stuck with
me. I'm sorry that I never saw the picture of the smaller cat the group
was discussing and thought this was the one. I wonder if anyone has any
stats on this Bolger cat - length, breadth etc (I think she's about 40 feet
- like a big Wharram cat with a building cost of over $40,000.00. But she
looks like a very easily operated cruising cat. Would the group care to
comment on this one - Would she be considered more of a motor sailing cat
? I find I tend to like PB&F's more "out of the ordinary" designs more
and more and would seriously consider building this one if I were thinking
of a Wharram - construction seems to be very straight forward. Can
anyone tell if the tween hull connections are crossbeams or a solid box
connection, What about the rig ? Easy to operate ? Maintain? Has she
ever appeared in MAIB ? Was she ever built ?
Aloha - Jack Spoering - FT Lauderdale, Fl. USA
Yes --- This is the PB cat that I was writing about earlier this week. I
had the Derek Harvey book (borrowed by someone) but the drawing stuck with
me. I'm sorry that I never saw the picture of the smaller cat the group
was discussing and thought this was the one. I wonder if anyone has any
stats on this Bolger cat - length, breadth etc (I think she's about 40 feet
- like a big Wharram cat with a building cost of over $40,000.00. But she
looks like a very easily operated cruising cat. Would the group care to
comment on this one - Would she be considered more of a motor sailing cat
? I find I tend to like PB&F's more "out of the ordinary" designs more
and more and would seriously consider building this one if I were thinking
of a Wharram - construction seems to be very straight forward. Can
anyone tell if the tween hull connections are crossbeams or a solid box
connection, What about the rig ? Easy to operate ? Maintain? Has she
ever appeared in MAIB ? Was she ever built ?
Aloha - Jack Spoering - FT Lauderdale, Fl. USA
> [Original Message]http://uk.geocities.com/martinlloyd.uk@.../PCB_CRUISING_CAT.html
> From: Martin Lloyd <martinlloyd@...>
> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 12/2/2004 4:26:23 PM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: PB - Cruising CAT
>
>
>
> Hopefully you will be able to access this URL........discussed
>
> This boat is similiar to the singlehander catamaran that is being
> but larger, I think.... has anyone seen this before???(978) 282-1349
>
>
>
>
>
> 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:
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Todd,
You are up to 2 proas built now? I remember that great little movie
of your model, skittering across the boat harbour.
Do you have a site to show your new 24ft design? I would love to see it,
DonB
You are up to 2 proas built now? I remember that great little movie
of your model, skittering across the boat harbour.
Do you have a site to show your new 24ft design? I would love to see it,
DonB
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
>
> No I can't build this as of yet but will have it tucked in the back
> of my mind. I'm starting quicksilver a 24' proa of my design ;)
>
> Todd
No I can't build this as of yet but will have it tucked in the back
of my mind. I'm starting quicksilver a 24' proa of my design ;)
Todd
of my mind. I'm starting quicksilver a 24' proa of my design ;)
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
>
> Whether or not the superstructure hits waves, at least one flat
> upriding bow will slam every wave. I bet your outrigger with flat
> bottom did not curve up above the water like the Bolger sharpie
design.
> But I think you are determined to build it Todd! Just do it! Your
> dentist will be a happy man. :)
> DonB
>
Apart from the length my 14' Caper Cat has about these specs. Thats
with about 150kg moveable crew ballast and 50+kg divided between
the hulls. Sail area with jib, I guess about 120+sqft. In bay swells
in deep water in 15~20kts, reaching, sails eased, quartering the
swells and mostly keeping the bows up, we'd regularly have a foot
plus crash across the trampoline centre, more across the lee hull.
No worries in the shallower water chop.
As your boat heeled perhaps your weather deck was lifted clear?
Graeme
with about 150kg moveable crew ballast and 50+kg divided between
the hulls. Sail area with jib, I guess about 120+sqft. In bay swells
in deep water in 15~20kts, reaching, sails eased, quartering the
swells and mostly keeping the bows up, we'd regularly have a foot
plus crash across the trampoline centre, more across the lee hull.
No worries in the shallower water chop.
As your boat heeled perhaps your weather deck was lifted clear?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
> I built a 16' flat bottom slab sided 12''wide 24''high at center
> sailing outrigger canoe. It had a 10'' draft with me on board
leave
> 14'' at center and about 10'' at both bows. I sailed in a bay and
in
> open ocean with swell and chop and not once did I have the deck
slam
> into or stick into a piece of chop. I have watched the bow
dissappear
> and the stern go completely submerged but never the deck. I could
> have built a 3 foot high grass hut on the weather deck and it
would
> have never gotten hit by a piece of chop coming up over.
>
> Now knowing this and stretching it to 23 feet and doubling the
width
> and having two hulls instead of just the one . I'd feel more than
> confident in building this catamaran and not worry about an
unlikly
> hypethetical chance of stuffing it into a piece of chop
My measurement made it 1'2". It could be slightly innacurate, but it
can't be as much as 1'6", which might be enough if the forward face
of the bridgedeck was quite small and well-faired, but it is not.
There are plenty of people, me included, who've experienced what
happens when even a well-faired crossbeam or bridgedeck starts to get
caught in the waves. Exactly what happens depends on the design and
the conditions, but there is a lot of drag and often a lot of
slamming.
Howard
can't be as much as 1'6", which might be enough if the forward face
of the bridgedeck was quite small and well-faired, but it is not.
There are plenty of people, me included, who've experienced what
happens when even a well-faired crossbeam or bridgedeck starts to get
caught in the waves. Exactly what happens depends on the design and
the conditions, but there is a lot of drag and often a lot of
slamming.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
>
> What if the others just went on the assumption and have not really
> tried this hull configuration, beam width and bridge deck clearance
> with x amount of sail.
>
> Really though It would be better to know how low the bridge deck is?
> I think 18''would be plenty.
>
> Todd
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
> <stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> >
> > Building and testing it would prove the point one way or another,
> but
> > there'd be quite a few sheets of ply in the project. I'd rather
> rely
> > on what others have said and done.
Whether or not the superstructure hits waves, at least one flat
upriding bow will slam every wave. I bet your outrigger with flat
bottom did not curve up above the water like the Bolger sharpie design.
But I think you are determined to build it Todd! Just do it! Your
dentist will be a happy man. :)
DonB
upriding bow will slam every wave. I bet your outrigger with flat
bottom did not curve up above the water like the Bolger sharpie design.
But I think you are determined to build it Todd! Just do it! Your
dentist will be a happy man. :)
DonB
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
>
> I don't know I don't see it with a 12 beam and only a 200 sqft sail
> area I don't see this catamaran weighting one hull significantly more
> than another. Unless abeam or running in a decent swell. So slamming
> into 3 foot chop doesn't seem to be a problem that would happen as
> often as you persume, except boat wakes or I guess if you live
> somewhere where there is consatnatly short steep close chop but even
> then if its short and close 23length would ride right on top wouldn't
> it. May hit the bottom of the cabin But I don't see it hitting the
> front of the cabin structure as frequently as you seem to think it
> would. No doubt it may and could happen but at what sailing angle and
> with what frequency and at what wave and wind condition. For somthing
> so simple in form and function I think its worth the risk.
>
> I built a 16' flat bottom slab sided 12''wide 24''high at center
> sailing outrigger canoe. It had a 10'' draft with me on board leave
> 14'' at center and about 10'' at both bows. I sailed in a bay and in
> open ocean with swell and chop and not once did I have the deck slam
> into or stick into a piece of chop. I have watched the bow dissappear
> and the stern go completely submerged but never the deck. I could
> have built a 3 foot high grass hut on the weather deck and it would
> have never gotten hit by a piece of chop coming up over.
>
> Now knowing this and stretching it to 23 feet and doubling the width
> and having two hulls instead of just the one . I'd feel more than
> confident in building this catamaran and not worry about an unlikly
> hypethetical chance of stuffing it into a piece of chop. Hey if you
> jump in your car and push the accelerator to the floor what are the
> chances of your car blowing up !? I'd rather build it and find out
> than blow up my car!
>
> Todd
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
> <stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> >
> > Scaling directly off the screen (it will not be entirely accurate,
> of
> > course) I measure 1'2" clearance between the flat horizontal part
> of
> > the bridgedeck and the water. When most of the weight is on one
> hull,
> > this clearance would be reduced to, say, 10". Think about what
> > happens when the boat meets a steep 3' chop. The hulls will not
> rise
> > much because of forward momentum and the low buoyancy of the narrow
> > hulls. Pitching up will not help because the forward part of the
> > bridgedeck is fairly far aft. Tons of solid water will hit the
> > superstructure at maybe 15 kts. It will be like slamming into a
> brick
> > wall.
> >
> > These days I don't have access to many catamaran drawings. But T.
> F.
> > Jones' "New Plywood Boats" shows his 18' x 8'6" cruising catamaran
> > Weekender as having 1'8" bridgedeck clearance. His 23'4" x 13'8"
> > Brine Shrimp has 2' . Also, the cabin tops are protected from waves
> > by the hulls and the forward part of the bridgedeck, which is also
> > nicely faired, at least in the case of the Weekender. These boats
> > have both been built and proven themselves in open water. There are
> > similar proportions and arrangements to minimize slamming in all
> > successful sailing cat designs.
> >
> > Not entirely by the way: Weekender won a design contest; PCB was
> the
> > judge.
> >
> > Howard
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
> > >
> > > No I don't see it. Hobie 16s have asymmetrical hulls with their
> > > designed width they naturally sit low in the water thats why the
> > plat form is raised off the hulls.
What if the others just went on the assumption and have not really
tried this hull configuration, beam width and bridge deck clearance
with x amount of sail.
Really though It would be better to know how low the bridge deck is?
I think 18''would be plenty.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
tried this hull configuration, beam width and bridge deck clearance
with x amount of sail.
Really though It would be better to know how low the bridge deck is?
I think 18''would be plenty.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
>but
> Building and testing it would prove the point one way or another,
> there'd be quite a few sheets of ply in the project. I'd ratherrely
> on what others have said and done.
Building and testing it would prove the point one way or another, but
there'd be quite a few sheets of ply in the project. I'd rather rely
on what others have said and done. For example, you'll find useful
information about catamaran design at:
http://www.sailmag.com/sailjermain.pdf
Note particularly the text under the "Bridgedecks" heading and look
at the pictures to see how the bridgedecks have been faired.
There is more good stuff at:http://www.bayacht.com/goodbad.htm
Check the bridgedeck clearance on the design at:
http://www.rmkmarine.com.au/fast_build.htm
Look at the effort that's been made to raise and fair the bridgedeck
and superstructure on the proa shown here:
http://www.wingo.com/proa/interior.html
Your favourite search engine will find more information for you.
Maybe everyone else is wrong and PCB is correct but, in the words of
Tim's sidekick Al in Home Improvements, "I don't think so, Tim".
Howard
there'd be quite a few sheets of ply in the project. I'd rather rely
on what others have said and done. For example, you'll find useful
information about catamaran design at:
http://www.sailmag.com/sailjermain.pdf
Note particularly the text under the "Bridgedecks" heading and look
at the pictures to see how the bridgedecks have been faired.
There is more good stuff at:http://www.bayacht.com/goodbad.htm
Check the bridgedeck clearance on the design at:
http://www.rmkmarine.com.au/fast_build.htm
Look at the effort that's been made to raise and fair the bridgedeck
and superstructure on the proa shown here:
http://www.wingo.com/proa/interior.html
Your favourite search engine will find more information for you.
Maybe everyone else is wrong and PCB is correct but, in the words of
Tim's sidekick Al in Home Improvements, "I don't think so, Tim".
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
>
> I don't know I don't see it with a 12 beam and only a 200 sqft sail
> area I don't see this catamaran weighting one hull significantly
more
> than another. Unless abeam or running in a decent swell. So
slamming
> into 3 foot chop doesn't seem to be a problem that would happen as
> often as you persume, except boat wakes or I guess if you live
> somewhere where there is consatnatly short steep close chop but
even
> then if its short and close 23length would ride right on top
wouldn't
> it.
I don't know I don't see it with a 12 beam and only a 200 sqft sail
area I don't see this catamaran weighting one hull significantly more
than another. Unless abeam or running in a decent swell. So slamming
into 3 foot chop doesn't seem to be a problem that would happen as
often as you persume, except boat wakes or I guess if you live
somewhere where there is consatnatly short steep close chop but even
then if its short and close 23length would ride right on top wouldn't
it. May hit the bottom of the cabin But I don't see it hitting the
front of the cabin structure as frequently as you seem to think it
would. No doubt it may and could happen but at what sailing angle and
with what frequency and at what wave and wind condition. For somthing
so simple in form and function I think its worth the risk.
I built a 16' flat bottom slab sided 12''wide 24''high at center
sailing outrigger canoe. It had a 10'' draft with me on board leave
14'' at center and about 10'' at both bows. I sailed in a bay and in
open ocean with swell and chop and not once did I have the deck slam
into or stick into a piece of chop. I have watched the bow dissappear
and the stern go completely submerged but never the deck. I could
have built a 3 foot high grass hut on the weather deck and it would
have never gotten hit by a piece of chop coming up over.
Now knowing this and stretching it to 23 feet and doubling the width
and having two hulls instead of just the one . I'd feel more than
confident in building this catamaran and not worry about an unlikly
hypethetical chance of stuffing it into a piece of chop. Hey if you
jump in your car and push the accelerator to the floor what are the
chances of your car blowing up !? I'd rather build it and find out
than blow up my car!
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
area I don't see this catamaran weighting one hull significantly more
than another. Unless abeam or running in a decent swell. So slamming
into 3 foot chop doesn't seem to be a problem that would happen as
often as you persume, except boat wakes or I guess if you live
somewhere where there is consatnatly short steep close chop but even
then if its short and close 23length would ride right on top wouldn't
it. May hit the bottom of the cabin But I don't see it hitting the
front of the cabin structure as frequently as you seem to think it
would. No doubt it may and could happen but at what sailing angle and
with what frequency and at what wave and wind condition. For somthing
so simple in form and function I think its worth the risk.
I built a 16' flat bottom slab sided 12''wide 24''high at center
sailing outrigger canoe. It had a 10'' draft with me on board leave
14'' at center and about 10'' at both bows. I sailed in a bay and in
open ocean with swell and chop and not once did I have the deck slam
into or stick into a piece of chop. I have watched the bow dissappear
and the stern go completely submerged but never the deck. I could
have built a 3 foot high grass hut on the weather deck and it would
have never gotten hit by a piece of chop coming up over.
Now knowing this and stretching it to 23 feet and doubling the width
and having two hulls instead of just the one . I'd feel more than
confident in building this catamaran and not worry about an unlikly
hypethetical chance of stuffing it into a piece of chop. Hey if you
jump in your car and push the accelerator to the floor what are the
chances of your car blowing up !? I'd rather build it and find out
than blow up my car!
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
>of
> Scaling directly off the screen (it will not be entirely accurate,
> course) I measure 1'2" clearance between the flat horizontal partof
> the bridgedeck and the water. When most of the weight is on onehull,
> this clearance would be reduced to, say, 10". Think about whatrise
> happens when the boat meets a steep 3' chop. The hulls will not
> much because of forward momentum and the low buoyancy of the narrowbrick
> hulls. Pitching up will not help because the forward part of the
> bridgedeck is fairly far aft. Tons of solid water will hit the
> superstructure at maybe 15 kts. It will be like slamming into a
> wall.F.
>
> These days I don't have access to many catamaran drawings. But T.
> Jones' "New Plywood Boats" shows his 18' x 8'6" cruising catamaranthe
> Weekender as having 1'8" bridgedeck clearance. His 23'4" x 13'8"
> Brine Shrimp has 2' . Also, the cabin tops are protected from waves
> by the hulls and the forward part of the bridgedeck, which is also
> nicely faired, at least in the case of the Weekender. These boats
> have both been built and proven themselves in open water. There are
> similar proportions and arrangements to minimize slamming in all
> successful sailing cat designs.
>
> Not entirely by the way: Weekender won a design contest; PCB was
> judge.
>
> Howard
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
> >
> > No I don't see it. Hobie 16s have asymmetrical hulls with their
> > designed width they naturally sit low in the water thats why the
> plat form is raised off the hulls.
The following will be obvious to many, but maybe not to all: if you
put yr cursor over the picture, right-click and select "Save picture
as...", you can save it and then display it with a viewer that puts
it on the screen at a reasonable size.
Using the backstay to support the luff of the mizzen is a clever
touch.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Lloyd" <martinlloyd@c...>
wrote:
put yr cursor over the picture, right-click and select "Save picture
as...", you can save it and then display it with a viewer that puts
it on the screen at a reasonable size.
Using the backstay to support the luff of the mizzen is a clever
touch.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Lloyd" <martinlloyd@c...>
wrote:
>http://uk.geocities.com/martinlloyd.uk@b.../PCB_CRUISING_CAT.htmldiscussed
> Hopefully you will be able to access this URL........
>
> This boat is similiar to the singlehander catamaran that is being
> but larger, I think.... has anyone seen this before???
> Martin Lloyd <martinlloyd@...> wrote:Definately Bolger. Haven't seen it before. About 20 ft wide by 40 feet long.
>
>http://uk.geocities.com/martinlloyd.uk@.../PCB_CRUISING_CAT.html
> Hopefully you will be able to access this URL........
>
> This boat is similiar to the singlehander catamaran that is being discussed
> but larger, I think.... has anyone seen this before???
'Staysail' similar to Chapter 30 in BWAOM.
Scaling directly off the screen (it will not be entirely accurate, of
course) I measure 1'2" clearance between the flat horizontal part of
the bridgedeck and the water. When most of the weight is on one hull,
this clearance would be reduced to, say, 10". Think about what
happens when the boat meets a steep 3' chop. The hulls will not rise
much because of forward momentum and the low buoyancy of the narrow
hulls. Pitching up will not help because the forward part of the
bridgedeck is fairly far aft. Tons of solid water will hit the
superstructure at maybe 15 kts. It will be like slamming into a brick
wall.
These days I don't have access to many catamaran drawings. But T. F.
Jones' "New Plywood Boats" shows his 18' x 8'6" cruising catamaran
Weekender as having 1'8" bridgedeck clearance. His 23'4" x 13'8"
Brine Shrimp has 2' . Also, the cabin tops are protected from waves
by the hulls and the forward part of the bridgedeck, which is also
nicely faired, at least in the case of the Weekender. These boats
have both been built and proven themselves in open water. There are
similar proportions and arrangements to minimize slamming in all
successful sailing cat designs.
Not entirely by the way: Weekender won a design contest; PCB was the
judge.
Howard
course) I measure 1'2" clearance between the flat horizontal part of
the bridgedeck and the water. When most of the weight is on one hull,
this clearance would be reduced to, say, 10". Think about what
happens when the boat meets a steep 3' chop. The hulls will not rise
much because of forward momentum and the low buoyancy of the narrow
hulls. Pitching up will not help because the forward part of the
bridgedeck is fairly far aft. Tons of solid water will hit the
superstructure at maybe 15 kts. It will be like slamming into a brick
wall.
These days I don't have access to many catamaran drawings. But T. F.
Jones' "New Plywood Boats" shows his 18' x 8'6" cruising catamaran
Weekender as having 1'8" bridgedeck clearance. His 23'4" x 13'8"
Brine Shrimp has 2' . Also, the cabin tops are protected from waves
by the hulls and the forward part of the bridgedeck, which is also
nicely faired, at least in the case of the Weekender. These boats
have both been built and proven themselves in open water. There are
similar proportions and arrangements to minimize slamming in all
successful sailing cat designs.
Not entirely by the way: Weekender won a design contest; PCB was the
judge.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
>
> No I don't see it. Hobie 16s have asymmetrical hulls with their
> designed width they naturally sit low in the water thats why the
plat form is raised off the hulls.
http://uk.geocities.com/martinlloyd.uk@.../PCB_CRUISING_CAT.html
Hopefully you will be able to access this URL........
This boat is similiar to the singlehander catamaran that is being discussed
but larger, I think.... has anyone seen this before???
Hopefully you will be able to access this URL........
This boat is similiar to the singlehander catamaran that is being discussed
but larger, I think.... has anyone seen this before???
This may seem dumb but if you look at the cartoon it looks as though
there is about 18''measuring from the back of my knee to my heel at
the aft part of the cabin bottom to waterline and may 24'' at the
front part of cabin bottom to waterline.
With out the real hull demesnions its hard to tell water the
displacment and water line will be. But assumming a 24'' wide bottom
at center 23 feet long should sit pretty high on the water even when
loaded. Also the cabin seems far enough back on the hulls to help
prevent that slamming into crests seems the craft would rise up and
over before crashing through anything except those boat wakes that
are usually three really close and steep waves. I have seen some 30
plus mono hulls get stood straight up and then slam back down from
some of those trawler and heavy cruiser wakes at the marina entrance.
Nasty wakes.
Todd
there is about 18''measuring from the back of my knee to my heel at
the aft part of the cabin bottom to waterline and may 24'' at the
front part of cabin bottom to waterline.
With out the real hull demesnions its hard to tell water the
displacment and water line will be. But assumming a 24'' wide bottom
at center 23 feet long should sit pretty high on the water even when
loaded. Also the cabin seems far enough back on the hulls to help
prevent that slamming into crests seems the craft would rise up and
over before crashing through anything except those boat wakes that
are usually three really close and steep waves. I have seen some 30
plus mono hulls get stood straight up and then slam back down from
some of those trawler and heavy cruiser wakes at the marina entrance.
Nasty wakes.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
>
> No I don't see it. Hobie 16s have asymmetrical hulls with their
> designed width they naturally sit low in the water thats why the
plat
> form is raised off the hulls.
> Todd
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
> <stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is not with the hulls pounding. Going to windward in
a
> > breeze, the leeward hull has almost no freeboard and the
bridgedeck
> > and the superstructure are hitting solid water. Fairing the
forward
> > structure would help a little, but the correct solution is to:
> > make the frontal area of the bridgedeck as small as possible;
fair
> > it; and raise it above the water.
> >
> > If you look at:http://www.hobiecat.com/media/pdf/Hobie16.pdf
> >
> > ... you will see the problem and how the Hobie 16 solves it.
> >
> > Howard
No I don't see it. Hobie 16s have asymmetrical hulls with their
designed width they naturally sit low in the water thats why the plat
form is raised off the hulls.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
designed width they naturally sit low in the water thats why the plat
form is raised off the hulls.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
>
> The problem is not with the hulls pounding. Going to windward in a
> breeze, the leeward hull has almost no freeboard and the bridgedeck
> and the superstructure are hitting solid water. Fairing the forward
> structure would help a little, but the correct solution is to:
> make the frontal area of the bridgedeck as small as possible; fair
> it; and raise it above the water.
>
> If you look at:http://www.hobiecat.com/media/pdf/Hobie16.pdf
>
> ... you will see the problem and how the Hobie 16 solves it.
>
> Howard
The problem is not with the hulls pounding. Going to windward in a
breeze, the leeward hull has almost no freeboard and the bridgedeck
and the superstructure are hitting solid water. Fairing the forward
structure would help a little, but the correct solution is to:
make the frontal area of the bridgedeck as small as possible; fair
it; and raise it above the water.
If you look at:http://www.hobiecat.com/media/pdf/Hobie16.pdf
... you will see the problem and how the Hobie 16 solves it.
Howard
breeze, the leeward hull has almost no freeboard and the bridgedeck
and the superstructure are hitting solid water. Fairing the forward
structure would help a little, but the correct solution is to:
make the frontal area of the bridgedeck as small as possible; fair
it; and raise it above the water.
If you look at:http://www.hobiecat.com/media/pdf/Hobie16.pdf
... you will see the problem and how the Hobie 16 solves it.
Howard
Yes your right unweighted amas do pound ? But a cat really does not
have unweighted light amas. The leeward hull of a cat is unweighted
sure but how much. Comparing it to the design sail area and 12' beam
not much in a 15 knot breeze.
Todd
have unweighted light amas. The leeward hull of a cat is unweighted
sure but how much. Comparing it to the design sail area and 12' beam
not much in a 15 knot breeze.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
>
> Even trimarans with much narrower (on the bottom) flat bottomed
floats
> pound uncomfortably when going to windward in lumpy conditions.
> I imagine the Bolger cat would be fun for messing about in sheltered
> waters, but that would be about it.
> DonB
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
> >
> > You think, Even with those skinny hulls and the slab sides. My
not
> > pound as much as you think. Whats the weight of the entire craft?
> > Whats the draft? The only other hull you could build this small
with
> > the same volume and buoyancy would be a very full rounded bottom
> > which slams given the right conditions.
> >
> > 3 times as long I'd except that but I really think this craft is
> > conservitively canvassed to do three times the wind speed on a
close
> > to broad reach. I'd be happy with twice the wind speed off the
wind
> > and wind speed or slightly above up wind.
> >
> > Todd
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
> > >
> > > It sure would be a nice boat to relax and sail down the
coastline
> > in a
> > > 15 knot wind, but I feel you would dread the trip home upwind
into a
> > > chop. The slapping and banging would be anything other than
> > > relaxing.....shocking in my opinion, and take 3 times as long
as the
> > > outward voyage,
> > > DonB
> > >
Even trimarans with much narrower (on the bottom) flat bottomed floats
pound uncomfortably when going to windward in lumpy conditions.
I imagine the Bolger cat would be fun for messing about in sheltered
waters, but that would be about it.
DonB
pound uncomfortably when going to windward in lumpy conditions.
I imagine the Bolger cat would be fun for messing about in sheltered
waters, but that would be about it.
DonB
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
>
> You think, Even with those skinny hulls and the slab sides. My not
> pound as much as you think. Whats the weight of the entire craft?
> Whats the draft? The only other hull you could build this small with
> the same volume and buoyancy would be a very full rounded bottom
> which slams given the right conditions.
>
> 3 times as long I'd except that but I really think this craft is
> conservitively canvassed to do three times the wind speed on a close
> to broad reach. I'd be happy with twice the wind speed off the wind
> and wind speed or slightly above up wind.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
> >
> > It sure would be a nice boat to relax and sail down the coastline
> in a
> > 15 knot wind, but I feel you would dread the trip home upwind into a
> > chop. The slapping and banging would be anything other than
> > relaxing.....shocking in my opinion, and take 3 times as long as the
> > outward voyage,
> > DonB
> >
You think, Even with those skinny hulls and the slab sides. My not
pound as much as you think. Whats the weight of the entire craft?
Whats the draft? The only other hull you could build this small with
the same volume and buoyancy would be a very full rounded bottom
which slams given the right conditions.
3 times as long I'd except that but I really think this craft is
conservitively canvassed to do three times the wind speed on a close
to broad reach. I'd be happy with twice the wind speed off the wind
and wind speed or slightly above up wind.
Todd
pound as much as you think. Whats the weight of the entire craft?
Whats the draft? The only other hull you could build this small with
the same volume and buoyancy would be a very full rounded bottom
which slams given the right conditions.
3 times as long I'd except that but I really think this craft is
conservitively canvassed to do three times the wind speed on a close
to broad reach. I'd be happy with twice the wind speed off the wind
and wind speed or slightly above up wind.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
>
> It sure would be a nice boat to relax and sail down the coastline
in a
> 15 knot wind, but I feel you would dread the trip home upwind into a
> chop. The slapping and banging would be anything other than
> relaxing.....shocking in my opinion, and take 3 times as long as the
> outward voyage,
> DonB
>
Exactly. It's really quite impractical.
Howard
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "dbaldnz" <oink@w...> wrote:
>
> It sure would be a nice boat to relax and sail down the coastline
in a
> 15 knot wind, but I feel you would dread the trip home upwind into a
> chop. The slapping and banging would be anything other than
> relaxing.....shocking in my opinion, and take 3 times as long as the
> outward voyage,
> What's going on with the centreboard?I don't know if that side-swinging foil is meant to the centerboard,
or the rudder.
It sure would be a nice boat to relax and sail down the coastline in a
15 knot wind, but I feel you would dread the trip home upwind into a
chop. The slapping and banging would be anything other than
relaxing.....shocking in my opinion, and take 3 times as long as the
outward voyage,
DonB
15 knot wind, but I feel you would dread the trip home upwind into a
chop. The slapping and banging would be anything other than
relaxing.....shocking in my opinion, and take 3 times as long as the
outward voyage,
DonB
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
>
> This thing looks awsome. I love it. Looks Like it would be a real
> pleasure to sail along the coast line with a nice 15 knot wind. Being
> able to hide from the wind under the square cabin really seems nice
> especially for the love ones and friends that don't really like wind.
> It seems it would be easy to clean up the squarness of the cabin if
> one wanted to put alittle more time and effort in the build. Awsome
> design!!!
>
> One thing does the board swing up side ways or the rudder? I need
> to subscribe to MAIB. Thanks for the cartoon.
>
> Todd
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > I've been following this square hull cat thread and
> > > guess if Peter saw
> > > the cat in MAIB it must have been a while ago.
> >
> > Vol 14, #3 (June 15,1996)
> >
> > Seehttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4photos/files/SharpieCat/
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Peter
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Todd" <ktsrfer@m...> wrote:
rudder, you could even go ice fishing in the winter!
Nels
>With some steel runners along the hulls and a big skate under the
> This thing looks awsome. I love it. Looks Like it would be a real
> pleasure to sail along the coast line with a nice 15 knot wind.
rudder, you could even go ice fishing in the winter!
Nels
According to his write-up in BWAOM, Bolger started out by thinking of
a monohull but came to the conclusion that it wasn't possible to
design one that would meet the enquirer's criteria: light (therefore
no fixed ballast), easy to trail, launch and retrieve, a centreboard
that wouldn't cut into simple accommodation, handsome appearance.
There was no particular seaworthy requirement, but it had to be
closewinded and faster than the ordinary trailerable cruiser.
Bolger says you could think of a catamaran as a derivative of a
tunnel-hull scow, but this one is really a narrow catamaran. Its 7-
foot beam was chosen so the keels would fit between the trailer's
wheels, thus keeping the boat lower on the trailer. He talks about
broader shallower hulls having "less tendency to generate spreading
waves", but there'd be no way that the two wave systems would not
interfere, although not necessarily to any great detriment.
Righting an unballasted boat of this size would always be a struggle.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984"
<graeme19121984@y...> wrote:
a monohull but came to the conclusion that it wasn't possible to
design one that would meet the enquirer's criteria: light (therefore
no fixed ballast), easy to trail, launch and retrieve, a centreboard
that wouldn't cut into simple accommodation, handsome appearance.
There was no particular seaworthy requirement, but it had to be
closewinded and faster than the ordinary trailerable cruiser.
Bolger says you could think of a catamaran as a derivative of a
tunnel-hull scow, but this one is really a narrow catamaran. Its 7-
foot beam was chosen so the keels would fit between the trailer's
wheels, thus keeping the boat lower on the trailer. He talks about
broader shallower hulls having "less tendency to generate spreading
waves", but there'd be no way that the two wave systems would not
interfere, although not necessarily to any great detriment.
Righting an unballasted boat of this size would always be a struggle.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984"
<graeme19121984@y...> wrote:
>Maybe
> Howard,
> was PCB also thinking of seaworthiness?
>
> Self-rescue, of course, would have to be singlehanded. He could of
> gone to an 8' beam and still kept easy legal road trailability.
>
> My semi-performance 14' Caper Cat does not have crew accomodation,
> but has ample hull storage for camp cruising provisions. At 8' beam
> it's an effort to right, especially from inverted. And it's not
> necessarily a solo boat.
>
> I remember reading that the hulls were just seperated enough
> to eliminate wave-making interference. Bruce, in his post called Si
> Cat a tunnel scow and HH Payson calls Fishcat a cathedral hull. Is
> there a difference?
>
> By the way, could Fishcat be made to sail (with accomodation)?
> by altering the run aft and the transom, or leave all that alone in
> the manner of Fast Brick?
Howard,
was PCB also thinking of seaworthiness?
Self-rescue, of course, would have to be singlehanded. He could of
gone to an 8' beam and still kept easy legal road trailability.
My semi-performance 14' Caper Cat does not have crew accomodation,
but has ample hull storage for camp cruising provisions. At 8' beam
it's an effort to right, especially from inverted. And it's not
necessarily a solo boat.
I remember reading that the hulls were just seperated enough
to eliminate wave-making interference. Bruce, in his post called Si
Cat a tunnel scow and HH Payson calls Fishcat a cathedral hull. Is
there a difference?
By the way, could Fishcat be made to sail (with accomodation)? Maybe
by altering the run aft and the transom, or leave all that alone in
the manner of Fast Brick?
Regards
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
was PCB also thinking of seaworthiness?
Self-rescue, of course, would have to be singlehanded. He could of
gone to an 8' beam and still kept easy legal road trailability.
My semi-performance 14' Caper Cat does not have crew accomodation,
but has ample hull storage for camp cruising provisions. At 8' beam
it's an effort to right, especially from inverted. And it's not
necessarily a solo boat.
I remember reading that the hulls were just seperated enough
to eliminate wave-making interference. Bruce, in his post called Si
Cat a tunnel scow and HH Payson calls Fishcat a cathedral hull. Is
there a difference?
By the way, could Fishcat be made to sail (with accomodation)? Maybe
by altering the run aft and the transom, or leave all that alone in
the manner of Fast Brick?
Regards
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
>monohull
> I was really thinking about the design in comparison with a
> which would be easier to build even if it were cold-moulded, andhave
> a roomier interior. It might even have better stability if it wereintended
> easier for the crew to be seated closer to the side than is
> with the Bolger cat. It would be marginally slower than the cat.If
> you picked a popular design you'd have a better chance of betteroffer.
> resale value.
>
> Have a look at the Hartley 21 at:
>http://www.hartley-boats.com/21.html
>
> ... to see what a similar-sized monohull trailer-sailer would
> There are plenty of more-modern designs of a similar size andnone
> configuration, including those from Bolger and Michalak.
>
> I admit to prejudice against Bolger multihulls, although I have
> against multihulls in general. My first boat was a 20' tri. Inthis
> size, a tri makes a lot of sense -- but that opens up a completelypoor
> new debate.
>
> Howard
>
> . --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> > Expressing some dissent with what
> > > Howard Stephenson wrote:
> > > -- it would be costly to build (but at least the hulls are
> > > symmetrical, so there would need to be only one mould), with
> > > resale value
> >
> > Of course, *all* boats have poor resale value.
> > Those hulls could be cold molded quickly, [if] you could
> > resist the urge to overdo the glossy finish. Not that
> > much different than building two big canoes.
> >
This thing looks awsome. I love it. Looks Like it would be a real
pleasure to sail along the coast line with a nice 15 knot wind. Being
able to hide from the wind under the square cabin really seems nice
especially for the love ones and friends that don't really like wind.
It seems it would be easy to clean up the squarness of the cabin if
one wanted to put alittle more time and effort in the build. Awsome
design!!!
One thing does the board swing up side ways or the rudder? I need
to subscribe to MAIB. Thanks for the cartoon.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
wrote:
pleasure to sail along the coast line with a nice 15 knot wind. Being
able to hide from the wind under the square cabin really seems nice
especially for the love ones and friends that don't really like wind.
It seems it would be easy to clean up the squarness of the cabin if
one wanted to put alittle more time and effort in the build. Awsome
design!!!
One thing does the board swing up side ways or the rudder? I need
to subscribe to MAIB. Thanks for the cartoon.
Todd
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
wrote:
>
> > I've been following this square hull cat thread and
> > guess if Peter saw
> > the cat in MAIB it must have been a while ago.
>
> Vol 14, #3 (June 15,1996)
>
> Seehttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4photos/files/SharpieCat/
>
> :)
>
> Peter
Sure is different and it confirms my prejudice about Bolger and
multihulls, although the extreme rocker seems to make sense.
What's going on with the centreboard? Is the helmsperson supposed to
sit facing out as shown, with a hand behind his/her back holding the
tiller extension, occasionally looking up and over the other shoulder
to check the set of the sail? Or maybe there's a strategically placed
mirror.
It could be the starting point for a simple power catamaran with a
single outboard motor mounted roughly where the rudder is on this
one. The rocker would not be helpful, though.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
wrote:
multihulls, although the extreme rocker seems to make sense.
What's going on with the centreboard? Is the helmsperson supposed to
sit facing out as shown, with a hand behind his/her back holding the
tiller extension, occasionally looking up and over the other shoulder
to check the set of the sail? Or maybe there's a strategically placed
mirror.
It could be the starting point for a simple power catamaran with a
single outboard motor mounted roughly where the rudder is on this
one. The rocker would not be helpful, though.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
wrote:
>
> > I've been following this square hull cat thread and
> > guess if Peter saw
> > the cat in MAIB it must have been a while ago.
>
> Vol 14, #3 (June 15,1996)
>
> Seehttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4photos/files/SharpieCat/
>
> :)
> I've been following this square hull cat thread andVol 14, #3 (June 15,1996)
> guess if Peter saw
> the cat in MAIB it must have been a while ago.
Seehttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4photos/files/SharpieCat/
:)
Peter
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Spoering" <spoering@e...> wrote:
looks like a cat. (Just about to get run over by Rose.) The name
is "Raptor". Anybody know about it?
The one behind it seems to be called 'SUPI-YAW-LAT' and has a flying
bridge no less!!
Nels
> Hi All -guess if Peter saw
>
> I've been following this square hull cat thread and
> the cat in MAIB it must have been a while ago I've missed it .Tom Jones
> mentions it in his "Multihull Voyaging" but no picture.On the Bolger & Friends Letterhead there is a little sketch of what
looks like a cat. (Just about to get run over by Rose.) The name
is "Raptor". Anybody know about it?
The one behind it seems to be called 'SUPI-YAW-LAT' and has a flying
bridge no less!!
Nels
I was really thinking about the design in comparison with a monohull
which would be easier to build even if it were cold-moulded, and have
a roomier interior. It might even have better stability if it were
easier for the crew to be seated closer to the side than is intended
with the Bolger cat. It would be marginally slower than the cat. If
you picked a popular design you'd have a better chance of better
resale value.
Have a look at the Hartley 21 at:
http://www.hartley-boats.com/21.html
... to see what a similar-sized monohull trailer-sailer would offer.
There are plenty of more-modern designs of a similar size and
configuration, including those from Bolger and Michalak.
I admit to prejudice against Bolger multihulls, although I have none
against multihulls in general. My first boat was a 20' tri. In this
size, a tri makes a lot of sense -- but that opens up a completely
new debate.
Howard
. --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
which would be easier to build even if it were cold-moulded, and have
a roomier interior. It might even have better stability if it were
easier for the crew to be seated closer to the side than is intended
with the Bolger cat. It would be marginally slower than the cat. If
you picked a popular design you'd have a better chance of better
resale value.
Have a look at the Hartley 21 at:
http://www.hartley-boats.com/21.html
... to see what a similar-sized monohull trailer-sailer would offer.
There are plenty of more-modern designs of a similar size and
configuration, including those from Bolger and Michalak.
I admit to prejudice against Bolger multihulls, although I have none
against multihulls in general. My first boat was a 20' tri. In this
size, a tri makes a lot of sense -- but that opens up a completely
new debate.
Howard
. --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> Expressing some dissent with what
> > Howard Stephenson wrote:
> > -- it would be costly to build (but at least the hulls are
> > symmetrical, so there would need to be only one mould), with poor
> > resale value
>
> Of course, *all* boats have poor resale value.
> Those hulls could be cold molded quickly, [if] you could
> resist the urge to overdo the glossy finish. Not that
> much different than building two big canoes.
>
Hi All -
I've been following this square hull cat thread and guess if Peter saw
the cat in MAIB it must have been a while ago I've missed it . Tom Jones
mentions it in his "Multihull Voyaging" but no picture. There IS a book
on Multihulls by Derek Harvey , a Brit, if you can come up with it in a
used book store (sorry, mine is among the missing) and he shows
Bolgers drawing. Does anyone know a way around Yahoo's not
allowing attachments on our emails - if I come up with my copy of Harvey's
book i'd scan the drawing and post it.
Aloha - Jack Spoering - FT Lauderdale
I've been following this square hull cat thread and guess if Peter saw
the cat in MAIB it must have been a while ago I've missed it . Tom Jones
mentions it in his "Multihull Voyaging" but no picture. There IS a book
on Multihulls by Derek Harvey , a Brit, if you can come up with it in a
used book store (sorry, mine is among the missing) and he shows
Bolgers drawing. Does anyone know a way around Yahoo's not
allowing attachments on our emails - if I come up with my copy of Harvey's
book i'd scan the drawing and post it.
Aloha - Jack Spoering - FT Lauderdale
> [Original Message]backyards)
> From: Stefan Probst <stefan.probst@opticom.v-nam.net>
> To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: 12/1/2004 11:39:26 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Re: PB - Cruising CAT
>
>
> Does anybody have a bit more info on this "square hull cat"?
> What's the name?
> Scans would be highly appreciated ;)
>
> As I wrote a few times in the WoodenPowerBoat list, I am thinking of a
> modular cat, i.e. two hulls, assembled in TIMS-like fashion from single
> modules, joined by a superstructure to make a catamaran.
>
> The reason behind is:
> - large deck space
> - least possible space for construction (not all people have large
> - smallest possible dimensions for transport(978) 282-1349
> (huge trailers are not everywhere available)
>
> TIA,
> Stefan
>
> > Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:37:19 -0000
> > From: "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@...>
> > Subject: Re: PB - Cruising CAT
>
> >There are two PCB catamaran ideas in the small size. ...
>
> >The other was in MAIB. It was about 20' long, with very Bolgeresque
> >square hulls and a cubic cabin. PCB remarked in the writeup that the
> >appearance was controversial even in the PCB&F office!
> >
> >Peter
>
>
>
>
> 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:
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Expressing some dissent with what
Those hulls could be cold molded quickly, [if] you could
resist the urge to overdo the glossy finish. Not that
much different than building two big canoes.
'tunnel scow'. She should be as stable as other 20' x 7'2" wide
boats, no? The width is limited by the need to fit on a
trailer. Also, she is intended as a 'single handed camp cruiser'.
Which light weight catamarans are you thinking of in this size
range that meet that need?
handed trailerable camp cruiser capable of outsailing most of the
commonly seen trailerable cruisers. The 'tunnel' is what achieves
the edge on speed, I think.
> Howard Stephenson wrote:Of course, *all* boats have poor resale value.
> -- it would be costly to build (but at least the hulls are
> symmetrical, so there would need to be only one mould), with poor
> resale value
Those hulls could be cold molded quickly, [if] you could
resist the urge to overdo the glossy finish. Not that
much different than building two big canoes.
> -- being so narrow, having such broad hulls, with deficiencies in theOf course, it wasn't designed as a catamaran, but rather as a
> c/b and rudder and limited ability to use the crew to provide
> righting moment, it would not sail near as well as a "proper"
> catamaran
'tunnel scow'. She should be as stable as other 20' x 7'2" wide
boats, no? The width is limited by the need to fit on a
trailer. Also, she is intended as a 'single handed camp cruiser'.
Which light weight catamarans are you thinking of in this size
range that meet that need?
> -- a monohull of similar dimensions would be easier and cheaper toTrue, of course, but the design 'wish list' was for a spartan single
> build, have better resale, better accommodation, a better cockpit,
> but would be slightly slower. Or you could put the same amount of
> time, money and material into a larger monohull.
handed trailerable camp cruiser capable of outsailing most of the
commonly seen trailerable cruisers. The 'tunnel' is what achieves
the edge on speed, I think.
Does anybody have a bit more info on this "square hull cat"?
What's the name?
Scans would be highly appreciated ;)
As I wrote a few times in the WoodenPowerBoat list, I am thinking of a
modular cat, i.e. two hulls, assembled in TIMS-like fashion from single
modules, joined by a superstructure to make a catamaran.
The reason behind is:
- large deck space
- least possible space for construction (not all people have large backyards)
- smallest possible dimensions for transport
(huge trailers are not everywhere available)
TIA,
Stefan
What's the name?
Scans would be highly appreciated ;)
As I wrote a few times in the WoodenPowerBoat list, I am thinking of a
modular cat, i.e. two hulls, assembled in TIMS-like fashion from single
modules, joined by a superstructure to make a catamaran.
The reason behind is:
- large deck space
- least possible space for construction (not all people have large backyards)
- smallest possible dimensions for transport
(huge trailers are not everywhere available)
TIA,
Stefan
> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:37:19 -0000
> From: "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@...>
> Subject: Re: PB - Cruising CAT
>There are two PCB catamaran ideas in the small size. ...
>The other was in MAIB. It was about 20' long, with very Bolgeresque
>square hulls and a cubic cabin. PCB remarked in the writeup that the
>appearance was controversial even in the PCB&F office!
>
>Peter
The strong lines of the hulls cry for mirror sym metry, but the
others are'nt having it?
Also its kind of Harry proa.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "woofers94401" <gregoryu@p...>
wrote:
larger monohull.
others are'nt having it?
Also its kind of Harry proa.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "woofers94401" <gregoryu@p...>
wrote:
> It's an intriging design, but there's something about it thatlooks or feels "off..." have never been able to put my finger on it.
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>Or you could put the same amount of time, money and material into a
> wrote:
larger monohull.
I'll be interested in a report once one of these hits the water.
It's an intriging design, but there's something about it that looks
or feels "off..." have never been able to put my finger on it.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
wrote:
It's an intriging design, but there's something about it that looks
or feels "off..." have never been able to put my finger on it.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
wrote:
>
> > Or you could put the same amount of
> > time, money and material into a larger monohull.
>
> Or, not as graceful, but probably more practical:
>
>http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/r/designs/gilbert/hotchili/hc.htm
> Or you could put the same amount ofOr, not as graceful, but probably more practical:
> time, money and material into a larger monohull.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/r/designs/gilbert/hotchili/hc.htm
Bruce's scan from SBJ is of the same boat as "Singlehanded
Catamaran", Chapter 52 in BWAOM, which reproduces a complete set of
plans, offsets and all. It had not been built when Bolger wrote about
the design for publication in 1994. Whoever builds the first one
would be conducting an expensive experiment.
Not that anyone is asking for it, but my opinion is that:
-- it would be costly to build (but at least the hulls are
symmetrical, so there would need to be only one mould), with poor
resale value
-- being so narrow, having such broad hulls, with deficiencies in the
c/b and rudder and limited ability to use the crew to provide
righting moment, it would not sail near as well as a "proper"
catamaran
-- a monohull of similar dimensions would be easier and cheaper to
build, have better resale, better accommodation, a better cockpit,
but would be slightly slower. Or you could put the same amount of
time, money and material into a larger monohull.
Howard
Catamaran", Chapter 52 in BWAOM, which reproduces a complete set of
plans, offsets and all. It had not been built when Bolger wrote about
the design for publication in 1994. Whoever builds the first one
would be conducting an expensive experiment.
Not that anyone is asking for it, but my opinion is that:
-- it would be costly to build (but at least the hulls are
symmetrical, so there would need to be only one mould), with poor
resale value
-- being so narrow, having such broad hulls, with deficiencies in the
c/b and rudder and limited ability to use the crew to provide
righting moment, it would not sail near as well as a "proper"
catamaran
-- a monohull of similar dimensions would be easier and cheaper to
build, have better resale, better accommodation, a better cockpit,
but would be slightly slower. Or you could put the same amount of
time, money and material into a larger monohull.
Howard
> There are two PCB catamaran ideas in the small size. The one that isThat one was also reprinted in the Bolger Book, Boats With an Open Mind,
> closest to your description, as best I remember, was a cartoon in
> Small Boat Journal in response to request for a fast daysailer. The
> hulls were round-bottom and nearly adjacent. One hull had a cockpit,
> and the other had a rounded, somewhat sleek hatch arrangement.
> Peter
Chapter. One of Phil Bolger's more 'outside the box' boat designs. I know
of none built, but it is simple enough that it would be an easy build and
I would bet that several have been made [or started] based on the lines
shown in the book.
The Small Boat Journal article was in issue 27, November 1982,
here is a partial scan:
http://hallman.org/sbj/27/sbj27.gif
> The cat had the hulls very close together the mast set backThere are two PCB catamaran ideas in the small size. The one that is
> behind the cabin
closest to your description, as best I remember, was a cartoon in
Small Boat Journal in response to request for a fast daysailer. The
hulls were round-bottom and nearly adjacent. One hull had a cockpit,
and the other had a rounded, somewhat sleek hatch arrangement.
The other was in MAIB. It was about 20' long, with very Bolgeresque
square hulls and a cubic cabin. PCB remarked in the writeup that the
appearance was controversial even in the PCB&F office!
Peter
I just ordered a copy of boats with an open mind hopefully the design will
be in there.
All I saw was a picture and description no dimensions.
The cat had the hulls very close together the mast set back behind the cabin
..so small main and large for sails a smaller mast and sail that extended
over the stern.
Engine; centre board, rudder and as far as I could tell rig/mast etc on the
port hull and accommodation to starboard .. Extremely unusual just
wondering if any have been built.
Bruce Hallman writes:
be in there.
All I saw was a picture and description no dimensions.
The cat had the hulls very close together the mast set back behind the cabin
..so small main and large for sails a smaller mast and sail that extended
over the stern.
Engine; centre board, rudder and as far as I could tell rig/mast etc on the
port hull and accommodation to starboard .. Extremely unusual just
wondering if any have been built.
Bruce Hallman writes:
Some confusion here. I believe it's 'Cat-amaran' we're talking about?
Bill
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Hallman
What size was it? The Chebacco is one of the most popular
Bolger cat rigged boats, and also the Micro, both are small
cruisers.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I saw a Phil Bolger Cruising Cat design in Thomas Firth Jones bookWhat size was it? The Chebacco is one of the most popular
> MULTIHULL VOYAGING.
> Martin
Bolger cat rigged boats, and also the Micro, both are small
cruisers.
Paul writes:
Thanks for the advice Paul
Thanks for the advice Paul
You can't directly attach an image. Yahoo photo's section
automatically reduces any photo size, unless someone viewing it wants
to "buy" a full size photo. Only the group's moderator, and the
original person posting the image get to see the image full size.
Everyone else see a reduced image. So always post photos to the files
section, so we get to see the full size image.
The Bolger files section is full, so Bolger2, Bolger3, Bolger4 groups
have been created as the previous groups files/photos section get
full. So right now Bolger4 is the current group to upload photos into
the files section, but post messages to the original Bolger group.
So just upload you pics into a folder here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4/files/
automatically reduces any photo size, unless someone viewing it wants
to "buy" a full size photo. Only the group's moderator, and the
original person posting the image get to see the image full size.
Everyone else see a reduced image. So always post photos to the files
section, so we get to see the full size image.
The Bolger files section is full, so Bolger2, Bolger3, Bolger4 groups
have been created as the previous groups files/photos section get
full. So right now Bolger4 is the current group to upload photos into
the files section, but post messages to the original Bolger group.
So just upload you pics into a folder here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4/files/
> As I am unable to post or attached a small image. I hope the
> description below will be enough.
As I am unable to post or attached a small image. I hope the
description below will be enough.
I saw a Phil Bolger Cruising Cat design in Thomas Firth Jones book
MULTIHULL VOYAGING.
The desgin is a homebuilt plywood cruising cat with a modest overall
breadth masts set behind cabin, rig, engine centreboard and working
area all in starboard hull; domestic accommodation only in port hull
any information appreciated
Regards,
Martin
description below will be enough.
I saw a Phil Bolger Cruising Cat design in Thomas Firth Jones book
MULTIHULL VOYAGING.
The desgin is a homebuilt plywood cruising cat with a modest overall
breadth masts set behind cabin, rig, engine centreboard and working
area all in starboard hull; domestic accommodation only in port hull
any information appreciated
Regards,
Martin