Re: Centennial II (dory looks, BW ancestry, Anhinga)
There was one #484 built -but not to plan, a boat called Sandy Bottoms. It had an
unsanctioned yawl rig and the builder's idea of small step fins amidships projecting from
the chine. That it tripped and flooded through the aft compartment may not be surprising.
That story and the boat generally were discussed in these messages a time or two, once
definitely around the end of 2001, and possibly a year or two before. The original Eeek!
plans are in 30-Odd-Boats along with study sheets for the 36' Seagoing Economy Cruiser
that started it all. There are finished plans for that.
Anhinga may have an advantage over BW in having separate areas for cabin and cockpit. I
liked that and thought about cutting a slot through the forward deck. That would work
only if it could be closed truly watertight under sail. In a knockdown, Anhinga probably
suffers the same, or more probably worse, lack of bouancy aft from surprisingly low
working freeboard that the original Martha Jane can be said to have. Going offshore,
sponsons ought to help. A Navigator cabin may be pushing it. Replace the plywood in the
upper sides with lexan to suit.
484 is pretty fine forward already as you mention, though it's more a 5 to1 boat than 6.
Heeled over, you're probably right.
If wanted, either for the rowing or getting home under power in a chop, the trick is not
so much drawing the profile and keel curves identically. Rather it's balancing the
buoyancy properly between what gets added and how high to move the upper chine.
Isn't #637 the little Pirogue offered up at Cheap Pages? Nice of him to send you the sheets.
Mark
graeme19121984 wrote:
unsanctioned yawl rig and the builder's idea of small step fins amidships projecting from
the chine. That it tripped and flooded through the aft compartment may not be surprising.
That story and the boat generally were discussed in these messages a time or two, once
definitely around the end of 2001, and possibly a year or two before. The original Eeek!
plans are in 30-Odd-Boats along with study sheets for the 36' Seagoing Economy Cruiser
that started it all. There are finished plans for that.
Anhinga may have an advantage over BW in having separate areas for cabin and cockpit. I
liked that and thought about cutting a slot through the forward deck. That would work
only if it could be closed truly watertight under sail. In a knockdown, Anhinga probably
suffers the same, or more probably worse, lack of bouancy aft from surprisingly low
working freeboard that the original Martha Jane can be said to have. Going offshore,
sponsons ought to help. A Navigator cabin may be pushing it. Replace the plywood in the
upper sides with lexan to suit.
484 is pretty fine forward already as you mention, though it's more a 5 to1 boat than 6.
Heeled over, you're probably right.
If wanted, either for the rowing or getting home under power in a chop, the trick is not
so much drawing the profile and keel curves identically. Rather it's balancing the
buoyancy properly between what gets added and how high to move the upper chine.
Isn't #637 the little Pirogue offered up at Cheap Pages? Nice of him to send you the sheets.
Mark
graeme19121984 wrote:
>Howard Stephenson wrote:
> PCB wrote me that 'Eeek!' #407 plans are not available ' as this was
> purely a "test article"' and felicitously enclosed the plans 'of a
> much superior boat #637, with text.' How about that?
>
> I too would like to know if an Anhinga has ever been built.
>
> I've just recalled IIRC that there was a learned discussion over in
> the boat design group earlier this year which settled more or less
> on a consensus that a flat bottomed, hard chined, plumb sided hull
> of proportions 6:1:5/8, (respectively Length:Beam:hullHeight) would
> best handle survival conditions in extreme seas. It was said it
> would least likely be knocked over by a beam sea, and in survival
> mode running off had directional stability such that it was unlikely
> to arrive at the bottom of a trough and present beam on to the
> following breaker. Similar proportions to Anhinga, albeit there was
> argument for some deadrise fore and aft. Canoe form hulls have
> always had a good reputation for riding to a sea anchor as well.
> Graeme
>
> Seeing that the bow is already so fine, would a box cutwater make any
> difference?
>
> Has an Anhinga ever been built? PCB seemed to be quite negative about
> Eeek!, its smaller ancestor, mainly in relation to its lack of
> stability.
>
> .
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark <marka@h...> wrote:
try to follow it up. By the way, the group archives are a rich
source of information. I've tried just dipping in at random and
never have to skim very far before coming on some absorbing thread
or other. The other week at message 573 I had an introduction to
Sweet Pea.
water-tight cabin as in the Storm Petrel concept.
send the sheets. More or less identical to Cheap Pages. Same honour
system request to just send him $25 for any built! graeme.
> There was one #484 built -but not to plan, a boat called Sandya time or two, once
>Bottoms. It had an
> unsanctioned yawl rig and the builder's idea of small step fins
>amidships projecting from
> the chine. That it tripped and flooded through the aft compartment
>may not be surprising.
>
> That story and the boat generally were discussed in these messages
> definitely around the end of 2001, and possibly a year or twoThanks for the info, and the time tag. I'll look in the archives and
>before.
try to follow it up. By the way, the group archives are a rich
source of information. I've tried just dipping in at random and
never have to skim very far before coming on some absorbing thread
or other. The other week at message 573 I had an introduction to
Sweet Pea.
>The original Eeek!I don't know about the slot. I'm thinking low profile, bouyant,
> plans are in 30-Odd-Boats along with study sheets for the 36'
>Seagoing Economy Cruiser
> that started it all. There are finished plans for that.
>
> Anhinga may have an advantage over BW in having separate areas for
>cabin and cockpit. I
> liked that and thought about cutting a slot through the forward
>deck. That would work
> only if it could be closed truly watertight under sail.
water-tight cabin as in the Storm Petrel concept.
>In aWould external ballast help?
>knockdown, Anhinga probably
> suffers the same, or more probably worse, lack of bouancy aft from
>surprisingly low
> working freeboard that the original Martha Jane can be said to
>have.
> Going offshore,Agreed.
> sponsons ought to help. A Navigator cabin may be pushing it.
>Replace the plywood in theYep. That's the one. 12' Pirogue.
> upper sides with lexan to suit.
>
> 484 is pretty fine forward already as you mention, though it's
>more a 5 to1 boat than 6.
> Heeled over, you're probably right.
> If wanted, either for the rowing or getting home under power in a
>chop, the trick is not
> so much drawing the profile and keel curves identically. Rather
>it's balancing the
> buoyancy properly between what gets added and how high to move the
>upper chine.
> Isn't #637 the little Pirogue offered up at Cheap Pages?
>Nice of him to send you the sheets.Too right, I thought it very nice of him to go to the trouble to
send the sheets. More or less identical to Cheap Pages. Same honour
system request to just send him $25 for any built! graeme.
> Mark
Not raving at all! I've had Anhinga plans for nearly 20 years. Every time I think about
building another boat the thoughts are hard to stop about how easily put together,
spectacularly roomy, truly useful and, yes, aesthetically attractive one would be. If
there were only someplace handy just to park it...
One modification that would take some study but be worth while is a box cutwater at the
bow. Now that would be a curious looking boat!!
PCB later did a balanced lug rig. That will be included in the new plan set.
Mark
graeme19121984 wrote:
building another boat the thoughts are hard to stop about how easily put together,
spectacularly roomy, truly useful and, yes, aesthetically attractive one would be. If
there were only someplace handy just to park it...
One modification that would take some study but be worth while is a box cutwater at the
bow. Now that would be a curious looking boat!!
PCB later did a balanced lug rig. That will be included in the new plan set.
Mark
graeme19121984 wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
>
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> > > I recall PCB writing that the original reason for
> > > the flare in the sides of a dory was so that they
> > > could be stacked compactly on deck. Used by
> > > cod fishermen, a good book on this is Captains
> > > Courageous, by Rudyard Kipling
> > >http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?
> > fk_files=575&pageno=7
>
> > I think the other reason is that as the boat became loaded down
> with
> > fish it became more and more stable, when sinking lower in the
> water.
> > This is because the boats were rowed empty to start out. So the
> > narrow bottom was desirable = less wetted surface. Then as fish
> were
> > added the dory became wider at the beam waterline and yet the
> motion
> > in crossing waves was more gentle than with vertical topsides.
> > Also the higher ends allowed the boats to rise in head seas even
> when
> > heavily loaded and the pronounced sheer still gave a good rowing
> > angle for the oars.
> >
> > If a boat has a more or less fixed load and is never rowed, then
> the
> > need for flare and pronounced sheer becomes a moot point. Many
> > sailors view this as a necessity to give a boat a "salty"
> appearance,
> > even though it is no longer required in most pleasure craft. PCB&F
> > are not bound by that tradional look and their designs are then
> > veiwed as being ugly.
> > From what I remember, the first "horseless carriages" were also
> seen
> > in the same way when they began to evolve away from the tradional
> > buggy look:-) Made for a lot of shaking of heads in despair and
> > cursing and insults.
> > Cheers, Nels
>
> In his square boat designs Mr Bolger still knows well how to invoke
> the "salty", "dory" look. Take the Sharpie-boxdecked-catamaran,
> where the foredecks rise to the stem, and the box cabin lower window
> line butttresses the look. wow.
>
> These lines are often functionally unnecessary (though occaisionally
> driven by conservation in materials). There are similar examples of
> this Designer's Art everywhere, often not immediately noticed and
> requiring some contemplation, in a cathead, paintline, moulding,
> proportion, sail plan, port light, lee board; from the sheerline of
> June Bug and on. How many of Mr Bolger's built designs are ever
> painted in more or less than two colours? In other than light and
> dark? Why, would a detail be lost? They'd probably still look
> alright, but as rendered in the plan we know they look great!
>
> In the group files section you will find Anhinga. I think this boats
> looks to be, in the British pop idiom, totally wicked. For some time
> I did not see what the lines were doing - those mouldings....
> ... which brings me to:
>
> THE 'CENTENNIAL2-ISATION' OF ANHINGA:
>
> Birdwatcher is said to be decended via Centennial ll. With thanks to
> the group member who posted earlier we now have
>
>http://tech-geeks.org/tiny.php?url=2100
>
> Its also been said to decend from Dovekie via a quest for a similar
> sailing / rowing design envelope, but to be home built. Earlier this
> year Mr Bolger wrote me "Plans of Anhinga #484 are US$200, but we
> consider this design, though aesthetically attractive and quite
> workable, to be technically obsolete, due to the superior qualities
> of Birdwatcher #496 ..." (He mentioned the then forthcoming Wooden
> Boat Magazine Article on BW; plans US$150 "and highly recommended"
> He also mentioned that the BW2 design "upgraded, less spartan"
> would be shortly available.)
>
> So, Anhinga figures in the BW ancestry.
>
> Now, BW and especially BW2 are said to have some offshore
> capability. However, with that slot, ARE they "fit to keep the sea
> in bad weather" as Centennial 2 is. BWs would take a lot of bailing.
>
> On the other hand, Anhinga is largely decked. The complicated water
> ballasting woodrot-trap might be ommited with another Jesse Cooper-
> like ballasted lee daggerboard to port, as per Centennial 2, and
> self righting increased.
>
> The fore watertight cabin bulkhead might be placed aft of the
> existing mast step and sail handling and ablutions done from a
> consequently larger bow well fo'ard of the mast. Or the 4 sided
> spritsail plan might be adapted from Centennial 2 with no bulkhead
> changes, and only the mast moved to the existing bow well. Either
> way the slot opening in the cabin deck currently for the mast is
> eliminated.
>
> You could end up with a square, rowable, beachable, Centennial 2
> equivalent. Like Storm Petrel if caught by bad weather offshore it
> may "do the corked-bottle act, protecting one or two people from the
> storm for a few hours or even a few days". Anhinga may have more
> cabin space than Centennial 2, and must be an easier, cheaper build
> than the Birdwatchers. Anhinga has striking fascinating lines and is
> spec'd for 1/4" plywood.
> My apologies if you think I'm raving.
> Graeme.
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
PCB wrote me that 'Eeek!' #407 plans are not available ' as this was
purely a "test article"' and felicitously enclosed the plans 'of a
much superior boat #637, with text.' How about that?
I too would like to know if an Anhinga has ever been built.
I've just recalled IIRC that there was a learned discussion over in
the boat design group earlier this year which settled more or less
on a consensus that a flat bottomed, hard chined, plumb sided hull
of proportions 6:1:5/8, (respectively Length:Beam:hullHeight) would
best handle survival conditions in extreme seas. It was said it
would least likely be knocked over by a beam sea, and in survival
mode running off had directional stability such that it was unlikely
to arrive at the bottom of a trough and present beam on to the
following breaker. Similar proportions to Anhinga, albeit there was
argument for some deadrise fore and aft. Canoe form hulls have
always had a good reputation for riding to a sea anchor as well.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
purely a "test article"' and felicitously enclosed the plans 'of a
much superior boat #637, with text.' How about that?
I too would like to know if an Anhinga has ever been built.
I've just recalled IIRC that there was a learned discussion over in
the boat design group earlier this year which settled more or less
on a consensus that a flat bottomed, hard chined, plumb sided hull
of proportions 6:1:5/8, (respectively Length:Beam:hullHeight) would
best handle survival conditions in extreme seas. It was said it
would least likely be knocked over by a beam sea, and in survival
mode running off had directional stability such that it was unlikely
to arrive at the bottom of a trough and present beam on to the
following breaker. Similar proportions to Anhinga, albeit there was
argument for some deadrise fore and aft. Canoe form hulls have
always had a good reputation for riding to a sea anchor as well.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
>about
> Has an Anhinga ever been built? PCB seemed to be quite negative
> Eeek!, its smaller ancestor, mainly in relation to its lack ofis a
> stability.
>
> Howard
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark <marka@h...>
> > One modification that would take some study but be worth while
> box cutwater at the
> > bow. Now that would be a curious looking boat!!
Seeing that the bow is already so fine, would a box cutwater make any
difference?
Has an Anhinga ever been built? PCB seemed to be quite negative about
Eeek!, its smaller ancestor, mainly in relation to its lack of
stability.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark <marka@h...>
difference?
Has an Anhinga ever been built? PCB seemed to be quite negative about
Eeek!, its smaller ancestor, mainly in relation to its lack of
stability.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark <marka@h...>
> One modification that would take some study but be worth while is abox cutwater at the
> bow. Now that would be a curious looking boat!!
A balanced lug rig. Great! Due to her decks and maybe with a raised
self draining cockpit or at least stoppable scuppers, good deck and
topside paint mean she may store out side in the weather ok. So
easily at rest on a simple flat bed trailer.
With a box cut water forward, and that flat pin tail, Anhinga's
bottom starts to resemble Col HG Hasler's box keel. Any ancestry
there?
Graeme
self draining cockpit or at least stoppable scuppers, good deck and
topside paint mean she may store out side in the weather ok. So
easily at rest on a simple flat bed trailer.
With a box cut water forward, and that flat pin tail, Anhinga's
bottom starts to resemble Col HG Hasler's box keel. Any ancestry
there?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark <marka@h...> wrote:
> Not raving at all! I've had Anhinga plans for nearly 20 years.
Every time I think about
> building another boat the thoughts are hard to stop about how
easily put together,
> spectacularly roomy, truly useful and, yes, aesthetically
attractive one would be. If
> there were only someplace handy just to park it...
>
> One modification that would take some study but be worth while is
a box cutwater at the
> bow. Now that would be a curious looking boat!!
>
> PCB later did a balanced lug rig. That will be included in the new
plan set.
> Mark
>
>
>
> graeme19121984 wrote:
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> >
> > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...>
wrote:
> > > > I recall PCB writing that the original reason for
> > > > the flare in the sides of a dory was so that they
> > Bolger rules!!!
> > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead
horses
> > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks,
Fred' posts
> > - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip
away
> > - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA,
01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> > - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
I should of said it's in Bolger2 yahoo group.
graeme
graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "john_fader" <toobwiz@k...> wrote:
>
> Where, Graeme???
>
> Cheers/The fader
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984"
<graeme19121984@y...>
> wrote:
>
> <BIG SNIP>
> > In the group files section you will find Anhinga. I think this
boats
> > looks to be, in the British pop idiom, totally wicked.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "john_fader" <toobwiz@k...> wrote:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/Anhinga/
> Where, Graeme???
>
> Cheers/The fader
Where, Graeme???
Cheers/The fader
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:
<BIG SNIP>
Cheers/The fader
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@y...>
wrote:
<BIG SNIP>
> In the group files section you will find Anhinga. I think this boats
> looks to be, in the British pop idiom, totally wicked.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
the "salty", "dory" look. Take the Sharpie-boxdecked-catamaran,
where the foredecks rise to the stem, and the box cabin lower window
line butttresses the look. wow.
These lines are often functionally unnecessary (though occaisionally
driven by conservation in materials). There are similar examples of
this Designer's Art everywhere, often not immediately noticed and
requiring some contemplation, in a cathead, paintline, moulding,
proportion, sail plan, port light, lee board; from the sheerline of
June Bug and on. How many of Mr Bolger's built designs are ever
painted in more or less than two colours? In other than light and
dark? Why, would a detail be lost? They'd probably still look
alright, but as rendered in the plan we know they look great!
In the group files section you will find Anhinga. I think this boats
looks to be, in the British pop idiom, totally wicked. For some time
I did not see what the lines were doing - those mouldings....
... which brings me to:
THE 'CENTENNIAL2-ISATION' OF ANHINGA:
Birdwatcher is said to be decended via Centennial ll. With thanks to
the group member who posted earlier we now have
http://tech-geeks.org/tiny.php?url=2100
Its also been said to decend from Dovekie via a quest for a similar
sailing / rowing design envelope, but to be home built. Earlier this
year Mr Bolger wrote me "Plans of Anhinga #484 are US$200, but we
consider this design, though aesthetically attractive and quite
workable, to be technically obsolete, due to the superior qualities
of Birdwatcher #496 ..." (He mentioned the then forthcoming Wooden
Boat Magazine Article on BW; plans US$150 "and highly recommended"
He also mentioned that the BW2 design "upgraded, less spartan"
would be shortly available.)
So, Anhinga figures in the BW ancestry.
Now, BW and especially BW2 are said to have some offshore
capability. However, with that slot, ARE they "fit to keep the sea
in bad weather" as Centennial 2 is. BWs would take a lot of bailing.
On the other hand, Anhinga is largely decked. The complicated water
ballasting woodrot-trap might be ommited with another Jesse Cooper-
like ballasted lee daggerboard to port, as per Centennial 2, and
self righting increased.
The fore watertight cabin bulkhead might be placed aft of the
existing mast step and sail handling and ablutions done from a
consequently larger bow well fo'ard of the mast. Or the 4 sided
spritsail plan might be adapted from Centennial 2 with no bulkhead
changes, and only the mast moved to the existing bow well. Either
way the slot opening in the cabin deck currently for the mast is
eliminated.
You could end up with a square, rowable, beachable, Centennial 2
equivalent. Like Storm Petrel if caught by bad weather offshore it
may "do the corked-bottle act, protecting one or two people from the
storm for a few hours or even a few days". Anhinga may have more
cabin space than Centennial 2, and must be an easier, cheaper build
than the Birdwatchers. Anhinga has striking fascinating lines and is
spec'd for 1/4" plywood.
My apologies if you think I'm raving.
Graeme.
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:with
> > I recall PCB writing that the original reason for
> > the flare in the sides of a dory was so that they
> > could be stacked compactly on deck. Used by
> > cod fishermen, a good book on this is Captains
> > Courageous, by Rudyard Kipling
> >http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?
> fk_files=575&pageno=7
> I think the other reason is that as the boat became loaded down
> fish it became more and more stable, when sinking lower in thewater.
> This is because the boats were rowed empty to start out. So thewere
> narrow bottom was desirable = less wetted surface. Then as fish
> added the dory became wider at the beam waterline and yet themotion
> in crossing waves was more gentle than with vertical topsides.when
> Also the higher ends allowed the boats to rise in head seas even
> heavily loaded and the pronounced sheer still gave a good rowingthe
> angle for the oars.
>
> If a boat has a more or less fixed load and is never rowed, then
> need for flare and pronounced sheer becomes a moot point. Manyappearance,
> sailors view this as a necessity to give a boat a "salty"
> even though it is no longer required in most pleasure craft. PCB&Fseen
> are not bound by that tradional look and their designs are then
> veiwed as being ugly.
> From what I remember, the first "horseless carriages" were also
> in the same way when they began to evolve away from the tradionalIn his square boat designs Mr Bolger still knows well how to invoke
> buggy look:-) Made for a lot of shaking of heads in despair and
> cursing and insults.
> Cheers, Nels
the "salty", "dory" look. Take the Sharpie-boxdecked-catamaran,
where the foredecks rise to the stem, and the box cabin lower window
line butttresses the look. wow.
These lines are often functionally unnecessary (though occaisionally
driven by conservation in materials). There are similar examples of
this Designer's Art everywhere, often not immediately noticed and
requiring some contemplation, in a cathead, paintline, moulding,
proportion, sail plan, port light, lee board; from the sheerline of
June Bug and on. How many of Mr Bolger's built designs are ever
painted in more or less than two colours? In other than light and
dark? Why, would a detail be lost? They'd probably still look
alright, but as rendered in the plan we know they look great!
In the group files section you will find Anhinga. I think this boats
looks to be, in the British pop idiom, totally wicked. For some time
I did not see what the lines were doing - those mouldings....
... which brings me to:
THE 'CENTENNIAL2-ISATION' OF ANHINGA:
Birdwatcher is said to be decended via Centennial ll. With thanks to
the group member who posted earlier we now have
http://tech-geeks.org/tiny.php?url=2100
Its also been said to decend from Dovekie via a quest for a similar
sailing / rowing design envelope, but to be home built. Earlier this
year Mr Bolger wrote me "Plans of Anhinga #484 are US$200, but we
consider this design, though aesthetically attractive and quite
workable, to be technically obsolete, due to the superior qualities
of Birdwatcher #496 ..." (He mentioned the then forthcoming Wooden
Boat Magazine Article on BW; plans US$150 "and highly recommended"
He also mentioned that the BW2 design "upgraded, less spartan"
would be shortly available.)
So, Anhinga figures in the BW ancestry.
Now, BW and especially BW2 are said to have some offshore
capability. However, with that slot, ARE they "fit to keep the sea
in bad weather" as Centennial 2 is. BWs would take a lot of bailing.
On the other hand, Anhinga is largely decked. The complicated water
ballasting woodrot-trap might be ommited with another Jesse Cooper-
like ballasted lee daggerboard to port, as per Centennial 2, and
self righting increased.
The fore watertight cabin bulkhead might be placed aft of the
existing mast step and sail handling and ablutions done from a
consequently larger bow well fo'ard of the mast. Or the 4 sided
spritsail plan might be adapted from Centennial 2 with no bulkhead
changes, and only the mast moved to the existing bow well. Either
way the slot opening in the cabin deck currently for the mast is
eliminated.
You could end up with a square, rowable, beachable, Centennial 2
equivalent. Like Storm Petrel if caught by bad weather offshore it
may "do the corked-bottle act, protecting one or two people from the
storm for a few hours or even a few days". Anhinga may have more
cabin space than Centennial 2, and must be an easier, cheaper build
than the Birdwatchers. Anhinga has striking fascinating lines and is
spec'd for 1/4" plywood.
My apologies if you think I'm raving.
Graeme.
Agreed.
An idea for a new kind of singlehanded sailing competition: the
winner is the first person to reach Bermuda from the USA, starting
with 11 sheets of ply, epoxy, glass, sailcloth, limited timber,
fasteners, paint (probably not necessary), buoyancy material, lead,
tools, food, water, GPS and other necessary gear and fittings.
CII would be a contender. Perhaps, to prevent too many short-cuts
being taken in the building, the course should be extended to, say,
the Azores or Plymouth, England. There'd need to be a few other rules
such as, maybe, the boat to be self-righting and capable of floating
completely swamped.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
wrote:
An idea for a new kind of singlehanded sailing competition: the
winner is the first person to reach Bermuda from the USA, starting
with 11 sheets of ply, epoxy, glass, sailcloth, limited timber,
fasteners, paint (probably not necessary), buoyancy material, lead,
tools, food, water, GPS and other necessary gear and fittings.
CII would be a contender. Perhaps, to prevent too many short-cuts
being taken in the building, the course should be extended to, say,
the Azores or Plymouth, England. There'd need to be a few other rules
such as, maybe, the boat to be self-righting and capable of floating
completely swamped.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@y...>
wrote:
> Although Bolger brags how few sheets of ply go into CII, he also
> uses natural wood for some things (e.g. leeboards) where he
> sometimes uses ply. I worried a little at his challenge to build a
> seaworthy cruiser with as few sheets, and decided the way to go was
> more like Long Micro. If I was going to sail to Bermuda and had
> choice of CII or LM, I'd choose LM in a flash, and I think most
> anyone would. CII has potential to be better looking, but the boxy
> cabin is a problem.
>
> Peter
> One reason to have flare is to get sheer.Note that on Centennial, the deck does not follow the sheer. The
deck is built first, and blocked up completely flat. The frames are
set up, then the planking. The combination of flat deck and a little
sheer does make for a nice micro-bulwark, but detracts from interior
volume.
Although Bolger brags how few sheets of ply go into CII, he also
uses natural wood for some things (e.g. leeboards) where he
sometimes uses ply. I worried a little at his challenge to build a
seaworthy cruiser with as few sheets, and decided the way to go was
more like Long Micro. If I was going to sail to Bermuda and had
choice of CII or LM, I'd choose LM in a flash, and I think most
anyone would. CII has potential to be better looking, but the boxy
cabin is a problem.
Peter
The write-up in Different Boats reproduces five sheets of plans: 1)as
per the first sheet from SBJ 2)ply panel layout 3)internal plan and
profile, deck plan 4)frames, rudder 5)second SBY sheet. The key to
the plans is there too.
Sorry I don't have access to a scanner, Bruce.
Howard
per the first sheet from SBJ 2)ply panel layout 3)internal plan and
profile, deck plan 4)frames, rudder 5)second SBY sheet. The key to
the plans is there too.
Sorry I don't have access to a scanner, Bruce.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> The whole boat takes 11 sheets of 3/8" plywood. I would like to
> see Bolger's panel layout diagram, as I bet it looks like a jigsaw
> puzzle, squeezing so much boat out of so little plywood.
> If you start with two straight side panels (straight top line parallelThat is what Bolger has done with Centenial II. The sides are
> to a straight bottom line), cut an angle at each end and fasten the
> ends together, you wind up with sheer, flare, and a minimum of wasted
> material.
made from three sheets of 3/8" plywood, ripped in half 24" wide.
The whole boat takes 11 sheets of 3/8" plywood. I would like to
see Bolger's panel layout diagram, as I bet it looks like a jigsaw
puzzle, squeezing so much boat out of so little plywood.
FWIW, here is a link to a scan of the Bolger 'letter to the editor'
about Centenial II from the Pilot Issue of Small Boat Journal, 1979.
http://hallman.org/bolger/Centenial2/centenial2.gif
Bolger makes reference to a John Gardner article of Nov.'78
in the magazine _National Fisherman_, which I would love
to see.
One reason to have flare is to get sheer. Here's a thought
experiment: take a Bolger sharpie, with plumb sides and flat sheer.
Spread the gunwales apart. The boat should curl up and have some
sheer. Sheer is at least pretty, and may have other virtues which
aren't related to landing cod from amidships or stacking.
If you start with two straight side panels (straight top line parallel
to a straight bottom line), cut an angle at each end and fasten the
ends together, you wind up with sheer, flare, and a minimum of wasted
material. That seems to be how MacNaughton designed his Silver Gull
series (seehttp://www.macnaughtongroup.com/silver_gull_19.htm).
As long as the sheer and flare don't compromise the low cost and
sailing performance too much, I'd rather have them.
Nels
experiment: take a Bolger sharpie, with plumb sides and flat sheer.
Spread the gunwales apart. The boat should curl up and have some
sheer. Sheer is at least pretty, and may have other virtues which
aren't related to landing cod from amidships or stacking.
If you start with two straight side panels (straight top line parallel
to a straight bottom line), cut an angle at each end and fasten the
ends together, you wind up with sheer, flare, and a minimum of wasted
material. That seems to be how MacNaughton designed his Silver Gull
series (seehttp://www.macnaughtongroup.com/silver_gull_19.htm).
As long as the sheer and flare don't compromise the low cost and
sailing performance too much, I'd rather have them.
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> This is similar to what I recall of PCB writing about the Jay Benford
> sailing dory used by Annie Hall of _Voyaging on a Small Income_.
> He asked [words to the effect of] why shoulc a boat shape be
> patterned on a flared side intended to allow working row boats
> to be stacked efficiently on the decks of sailing schooners.
> If a boat has a more or less fixed load and is never rowed, then theThis is similar to what I recall of PCB writing about the Jay Benford
> need for flare and pronounced sheer becomes a moot point. Many
> sailors view this as a necessity to give a boat a "salty" appearance,
> even though it is no longer required in most pleasure craft.
sailing dory used by Annie Hall of _Voyaging on a Small Income_.
He asked [words to the effect of] why shoulc a boat shape be
patterned on a flared side intended to allow working row boats
to be stacked efficiently on the decks of sailing schooners.
The following is mainly taken from Gardner's book: The word dory
seems to have been used first to describe a particular kind of small
boat towards the end of the eighteenth century, well before the
establishment of the Banks cod fishery as depicted in Capts. C.
Nobody knows exactly what these boats were like, but it seems they
were a product of new technology, which allowed large logs to be sawn
into broad planks. Previously, logs had to be split in halves, then
quarters then segments, producing narrower planks, suitable for round-
bilged clinker or carvel construction.
As usual, the shape has a lot to do with the available material.
Broad planks were available, but nails were scarce and expensive in
the New World. (Buildings were sometimes burnt down just to recover
the nails for new construction). When you start with a flat bottom
and put a rocker in it, then build up the sides with little or no
spiling (making the planks narrower towards the ends), the hull
naturally develops the characteristic flare, low freeboard amidships -
-desirable for hauling nets or heavy fish over the side --and high
ends.
Similarly, the design of Bolger's "instant boats" is heavily
influenced by the material available: plywood in 8' x 4' sheets etc.
Howard
seems to have been used first to describe a particular kind of small
boat towards the end of the eighteenth century, well before the
establishment of the Banks cod fishery as depicted in Capts. C.
Nobody knows exactly what these boats were like, but it seems they
were a product of new technology, which allowed large logs to be sawn
into broad planks. Previously, logs had to be split in halves, then
quarters then segments, producing narrower planks, suitable for round-
bilged clinker or carvel construction.
As usual, the shape has a lot to do with the available material.
Broad planks were available, but nails were scarce and expensive in
the New World. (Buildings were sometimes burnt down just to recover
the nails for new construction). When you start with a flat bottom
and put a rocker in it, then build up the sides with little or no
spiling (making the planks narrower towards the ends), the hull
naturally develops the characteristic flare, low freeboard amidships -
-desirable for hauling nets or heavy fish over the side --and high
ends.
Similarly, the design of Bolger's "instant boats" is heavily
influenced by the material available: plywood in 8' x 4' sheets etc.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
I think the other reason is that as the boat became loaded down with
fish it became more and more stable, when sinking lower in the water.
This is because the boats were rowed empty to start out. So the
narrow bottom was desirable = less wetted surface. Then as fish were
added the dory became wider at the beam waterline and yet the motion
in crossing waves was more gentle than with vertical topsides.
Also the higher ends allowed the boats to rise in head seas even when
heavily loaded and the pronounced sheer still gave a good rowing
angle for the oars.
If a boat has a more or less fixed load and is never rowed, then the
need for flare and pronounced sheer becomes a moot point. Many
sailors view this as a necessity to give a boat a "salty" appearance,
even though it is no longer required in most pleasure craft. PCB&F
are not bound by that tradional look and their designs are then
veiwed as being ugly.
From what I remember, the first "horseless carriages" were also seen
in the same way when they began to evolve away from the tradional
buggy look:-) Made for a lot of shaking of heads in despair and
cursing and insults.
Cheers, Nels
> I recall PCB writing that the original reason forfk_files=575&pageno=7
> the flare in the sides of a dory was so that they
> could be stacked compactly on deck. Used by
> cod fishermen, a good book on this is Captains
> Courageous, by Rudyard Kipling
>http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?
I think the other reason is that as the boat became loaded down with
fish it became more and more stable, when sinking lower in the water.
This is because the boats were rowed empty to start out. So the
narrow bottom was desirable = less wetted surface. Then as fish were
added the dory became wider at the beam waterline and yet the motion
in crossing waves was more gentle than with vertical topsides.
Also the higher ends allowed the boats to rise in head seas even when
heavily loaded and the pronounced sheer still gave a good rowing
angle for the oars.
If a boat has a more or less fixed load and is never rowed, then the
need for flare and pronounced sheer becomes a moot point. Many
sailors view this as a necessity to give a boat a "salty" appearance,
even though it is no longer required in most pleasure craft. PCB&F
are not bound by that tradional look and their designs are then
veiwed as being ugly.
From what I remember, the first "horseless carriages" were also seen
in the same way when they began to evolve away from the tradional
buggy look:-) Made for a lot of shaking of heads in despair and
cursing and insults.
Cheers, Nels
> Dories tend to have more flare to their sidesI recall PCB writing that the original reason for
> Howard
the flare in the sides of a dory was so that they
could be stacked compactly on deck. Used by
cod fishermen, a good book on this is Captains
Courageous, by Rudyard Kipling
http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=575&pageno=7
Someone named Donald Carron claims to have written Bolger in '84
urging him to put a cuddy cabin on Centennial in response to reading
that Bolger had not come up with a saisfactory homebuilt version of
Dovekie.
Birdwatcher came out a year later according to Don.
If you do a search in Google on groups with the following search, it
will bring up the originial message:
"later he published "Birdwatcher" in Small Boat Journal"
urging him to put a cuddy cabin on Centennial in response to reading
that Bolger had not come up with a saisfactory homebuilt version of
Dovekie.
Birdwatcher came out a year later according to Don.
If you do a search in Google on groups with the following search, it
will bring up the originial message:
"later he published "Birdwatcher" in Small Boat Journal"
> The hull shape is almost identical to Birdwatcher's, and is referred
> to as a "dory" in the cartoons.
From The Dory Book by John Gardner:
"A dory is a flat-bottomed boat, with sides and bottom planked
lengthwise and with no keel structure other than the bottom planking"
"A cross-planked, flat-bottomed boat [what I would call a sharpie] is
not a dory. Cross planking is a more recent innovation in flat-
bottomed craft. It requires an abundance of nails or other plank
fastenings not readily available to classic builders of dories."
Traditionally dories were built by first constructing the bottom,
consisting of long planks held together by transverse cleats. The
bottom was made to take up a slight rocker, then the sides were built
up on the bottom.
Sharpies were built upside-down. The sides were made up and separated
by simple frames or posts and the bottom planks laid across them one-
by-one and nailed on.
Dories tend to have more flare to their sides than sharpies. Sharpies
tend to have broader transoms than dories. Now that we use mainly
plywood construction, the distinction between the two is not so
clear. As you imply, Nels, there is a crossover point, where I guess
it's really up to the designer to decide what to call it.
Howard
"A dory is a flat-bottomed boat, with sides and bottom planked
lengthwise and with no keel structure other than the bottom planking"
"A cross-planked, flat-bottomed boat [what I would call a sharpie] is
not a dory. Cross planking is a more recent innovation in flat-
bottomed craft. It requires an abundance of nails or other plank
fastenings not readily available to classic builders of dories."
Traditionally dories were built by first constructing the bottom,
consisting of long planks held together by transverse cleats. The
bottom was made to take up a slight rocker, then the sides were built
up on the bottom.
Sharpies were built upside-down. The sides were made up and separated
by simple frames or posts and the bottom planks laid across them one-
by-one and nailed on.
Dories tend to have more flare to their sides than sharpies. Sharpies
tend to have broader transoms than dories. Now that we use mainly
plywood construction, the distinction between the two is not so
clear. As you imply, Nels, there is a crossover point, where I guess
it's really up to the designer to decide what to call it.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> So when does a dory become a sharpie I wonder?
I was reading the article on the above boat and indeed it is a
variation of the original Centennial as designed by John Gardner and
written up in National Fisherman in 1978.
It utilizes 11 sheets of 3/8 plywood and cost less than $1000 to
build including sails. The rudder set-up and weighted leeboards were
considered very awkward and not suitable for day sailing.
Two things of particular interest:
The hull shape is almost identical to Birdwatcher's, and is referred
to as a "dory" in the cartoons.
So when does a dory become a sharpie I wonder?
Cheers, Nels
variation of the original Centennial as designed by John Gardner and
written up in National Fisherman in 1978.
It utilizes 11 sheets of 3/8 plywood and cost less than $1000 to
build including sails. The rudder set-up and weighted leeboards were
considered very awkward and not suitable for day sailing.
Two things of particular interest:
The hull shape is almost identical to Birdwatcher's, and is referred
to as a "dory" in the cartoons.
So when does a dory become a sharpie I wonder?
Cheers, Nels