Re: Birdwatcher Heresy?
build a well.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette"
<robertpaquette@o...> wrote:
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Paquette"
<robertpaquette@o...> wrote:
>To
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <pseudodion@s...> wrote:
> >
> > What would be the implications of fitting a transom stern on BW
> besides tweaking the noses of the double-ender purists here?;-)
>
> No matter how you slice it, a cruising sailboat has to take
> advantage of an auxiallary motor. I've been studying the difference
> between His & Her Schooner and Scooner. In '30 Odd Boats'(?) PB
> himself has difficulty finding an easy solution for the outboard.
> build one, I would combine the lead daggerboard, and cabin of H&H
> Schooner with the square transom and outboard motor well of Scooner.
> A canoe stern on a sailboat is great for a daysailor and
> such, where your never too far from home and can always row back to
> port. But on a cruiser, I would need that outboard.
>
> Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
<John.Trussell@w...> wrote: " But the boat (Birdwatcher l) is still
low and you sit on the floor (which is one reason I never have built
one).
Actually John, there's no need to sit on the floor, except perhaps,
in a serious gale. She's stable enough to stand up in most of the
time, folding or plastic lawn chairs the rest.
I imagine BW2 will share these same atributes.
Bruce HEctor
<John.Trussell@w...> wrote: " But the boat (Birdwatcher l) is still
low and you sit on the floor (which is one reason I never have built
one).
Actually John, there's no need to sit on the floor, except perhaps,
in a serious gale. She's stable enough to stand up in most of the
time, folding or plastic lawn chairs the rest.
I imagine BW2 will share these same atributes.
Bruce HEctor
The original Birdwatcher was intended to be a homebuildable Dovekie. Dovekie was intended to be a sailing cruiser which could be operated without a motor (relying on 12 ft oars unstead of a motor) As a result, Dovekie was light, low, (crawling headroom), streamlined, with boards which could be quickly raised, and a rig which could be lowered quickly. These features allow a Dovekie to be rowed fairly easily.
BW1 was designed for home building out of plywood. The double ended sharpie hull goes together quickly and keeps crew weight out of the ends of the boat. The combination of cabin and cockpit, with a full length walkway also keeps crew weight centered, and provides a streamlined hull for rowing (along with its many other advantages-- this may be Bolger's greatest contribution to small craft design). But the boat is still low and you sit on the floor (which is one reason I never have built one).
If you are going to use a motor, then why built a boat around rowing capabilities? Well, PB&F did it with BW2. It has an elegant stern to hide the motor, a metal centerboard, more complicated construction, and a bigger, more complicated rig. It will probably be a faster sailor in light air than BW1, retains the virtues of a BW cabin/cockpit, probably won't row as well (due to weight and the complication of lowering the rig), but it still has all the compromises required of a rowing boat.
In general, when an existing design has been developed around specific, unique capabilities, it may not be the best idea to modify it to get new capabilities. Or, to utter the ultimate heresy, maybe BW1 was not the best point of departure for an outboard auxiliary with a "Birdwatcher cabin". Or maybe BW2 corrects perceived faults with BW1 and is a better set of compromises than the original. Until there is an opportunity to sail a BW1 side by side with a BW2, we won't know.
John T
BW1 was designed for home building out of plywood. The double ended sharpie hull goes together quickly and keeps crew weight out of the ends of the boat. The combination of cabin and cockpit, with a full length walkway also keeps crew weight centered, and provides a streamlined hull for rowing (along with its many other advantages-- this may be Bolger's greatest contribution to small craft design). But the boat is still low and you sit on the floor (which is one reason I never have built one).
If you are going to use a motor, then why built a boat around rowing capabilities? Well, PB&F did it with BW2. It has an elegant stern to hide the motor, a metal centerboard, more complicated construction, and a bigger, more complicated rig. It will probably be a faster sailor in light air than BW1, retains the virtues of a BW cabin/cockpit, probably won't row as well (due to weight and the complication of lowering the rig), but it still has all the compromises required of a rowing boat.
In general, when an existing design has been developed around specific, unique capabilities, it may not be the best idea to modify it to get new capabilities. Or, to utter the ultimate heresy, maybe BW1 was not the best point of departure for an outboard auxiliary with a "Birdwatcher cabin". Or maybe BW2 corrects perceived faults with BW1 and is a better set of compromises than the original. Until there is an opportunity to sail a BW1 side by side with a BW2, we won't know.
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Hector
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 10:36 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Birdwatcher Heresy?
I've ridden in Jim Michalak's early (original?) Birdwatcher at the
2003 Rend Lake Messabout. There was no wind and the water was glassy.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/r/articles/midwest/messabout.cfm
Jim has his outboard rigged on a square spar bolted?, across the
stern cockpit edges. Jsut aft of where the polycarb windows came down
to the sheer line. Like a canoe mount.
BW certainly didn't mind this off centre thrust, or the weight of the
motor. I don't know the hp, but it was an older 10 hp or less, maybe
a 6, tuned up for Jim by the old motor guru Max.
What I did notice, was how nice it was. With three adults aboard,
casually strolling about, usually leaning our elbows on the roof.
Stable, crisp, fast (6-7 knots) with the motor just abouve an idle.
The boat was not particularily fussy about where 650 pounds of people
chose to plunk themselves. Designed to be sailed from inside, we all
kept standing in the slot.
Made a great photo platform for my coverage of the Rend Lake messabout
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I've ridden in Jim Michalak's early (original?) Birdwatcher at the
2003 Rend Lake Messabout. There was no wind and the water was glassy.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/r/articles/midwest/messabout.cfm
Jim has his outboard rigged on a square spar bolted?, across the
stern cockpit edges. Jsut aft of where the polycarb windows came down
to the sheer line. Like a canoe mount.
BW certainly didn't mind this off centre thrust, or the weight of the
motor. I don't know the hp, but it was an older 10 hp or less, maybe
a 6, tuned up for Jim by the old motor guru Max.
What I did notice, was how nice it was. With three adults aboard,
casually strolling about, usually leaning our elbows on the roof.
Stable, crisp, fast (6-7 knots) with the motor just abouve an idle.
The boat was not particularily fussy about where 650 pounds of people
chose to plunk themselves. Designed to be sailed from inside, we all
kept standing in the slot.
Made a great photo platform for my coverage of the Rend Lake messabout
2003 Rend Lake Messabout. There was no wind and the water was glassy.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/r/articles/midwest/messabout.cfm
Jim has his outboard rigged on a square spar bolted?, across the
stern cockpit edges. Jsut aft of where the polycarb windows came down
to the sheer line. Like a canoe mount.
BW certainly didn't mind this off centre thrust, or the weight of the
motor. I don't know the hp, but it was an older 10 hp or less, maybe
a 6, tuned up for Jim by the old motor guru Max.
What I did notice, was how nice it was. With three adults aboard,
casually strolling about, usually leaning our elbows on the roof.
Stable, crisp, fast (6-7 knots) with the motor just abouve an idle.
The boat was not particularily fussy about where 650 pounds of people
chose to plunk themselves. Designed to be sailed from inside, we all
kept standing in the slot.
Made a great photo platform for my coverage of the Rend Lake messabout
P.S. Bruce Hallman gave the perfect answer to the transom question. David
Hi John, as you say, the BW1 is lighter and simpler to build. If I had
started one of those, I might be sailing instead of still building
(probably not, given my "honey-do" Rolodex!The list goes round and
round :-]). But in terms of performance, the "off-centerboard" is
longer, and has a 1/2" steel plate laminated inside adding 109 pounds
of ballast, which is substanial in an 800 pound hull. My board,
glassed and finished weighs 140 pounds. This allows a larger solent
rig which is bigger still than the BW1 with jib. BW1 is a very quick
boat, and according to PB&F, BW2 should be faster still (he wrote
hopefully!)
The patent stern gives, as Phil writes, a place to clean fish or fry
greasy burgers outside the living quarters, as well as protecting the
rudder and motorhead from pilings, docks,other boats, etc.. I would
consider the extra space and comfort a form of improved performance,
as I do the foam construction. Also, Phil has drawn one of his
eliptical pads on the bottom at the bow, which adds weight, but quiets
the hull at anchor, again improved performance.
Having said all that, I bought the BW2 plans based on the one page
about it in the great Wooden Boat article by Masom Smith. I did not
realize the jump in evolution from BW1, and as a result had to change
my original plans and time frame.
I was really wondering why someone would want to put a transom on it,
as asked about in an earlier post.
Take care, David
started one of those, I might be sailing instead of still building
(probably not, given my "honey-do" Rolodex!The list goes round and
round :-]). But in terms of performance, the "off-centerboard" is
longer, and has a 1/2" steel plate laminated inside adding 109 pounds
of ballast, which is substanial in an 800 pound hull. My board,
glassed and finished weighs 140 pounds. This allows a larger solent
rig which is bigger still than the BW1 with jib. BW1 is a very quick
boat, and according to PB&F, BW2 should be faster still (he wrote
hopefully!)
The patent stern gives, as Phil writes, a place to clean fish or fry
greasy burgers outside the living quarters, as well as protecting the
rudder and motorhead from pilings, docks,other boats, etc.. I would
consider the extra space and comfort a form of improved performance,
as I do the foam construction. Also, Phil has drawn one of his
eliptical pads on the bottom at the bow, which adds weight, but quiets
the hull at anchor, again improved performance.
Having said all that, I bought the BW2 plans based on the one page
about it in the great Wooden Boat article by Masom Smith. I did not
realize the jump in evolution from BW1, and as a result had to change
my original plans and time frame.
I was really wondering why someone would want to put a transom on it,
as asked about in an earlier post.
Take care, David
Simplicity, economy, and performance all suggest that BW 1 is a better boat--quicker to build, cheaper, lighter, and with at least as much room and performance as BW2. And yet, PB&F felt there was room for improvement and came up with BW2.
John T
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: Lipsey
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Birdwatcher Heresy?
The first Birdwatcher ever built had a motor, the Birdwatcher2 I'm building
was designed by PB&F to carry a motor with which I plan to log many hours
motoring on the area rivers. Under those conditions, the flat bottom
double-ender will cruise at 7mph, while sipping fuel in a most economic way.
And when I reach the broad lakes these rivers connect, I'll sail as much as
possible, quickly and efficiently. I don't understand why you would have any
desire to muck about with the given design ( said form a point of
simplicity, economy, and performance, not fanaticism ).
David L
Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.4 - Release Date: 3/18/2005
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The first Birdwatcher ever built had a motor, the Birdwatcher2 I'm building
was designed by PB&F to carry a motor with which I plan to log many hours
motoring on the area rivers. Under those conditions, the flat bottom
double-ender will cruise at 7mph, while sipping fuel in a most economic way.
And when I reach the broad lakes these rivers connect, I'll sail as much as
possible, quickly and efficiently. I don't understand why you would have any
desire to muck about with the given design ( said form a point of
simplicity, economy, and performance, not fanaticism ).
David L
was designed by PB&F to carry a motor with which I plan to log many hours
motoring on the area rivers. Under those conditions, the flat bottom
double-ender will cruise at 7mph, while sipping fuel in a most economic way.
And when I reach the broad lakes these rivers connect, I'll sail as much as
possible, quickly and efficiently. I don't understand why you would have any
desire to muck about with the given design ( said form a point of
simplicity, economy, and performance, not fanaticism ).
David L
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis" <pseudodion@s...> wrote:
No matter how you slice it, a cruising sailboat has to take
advantage of an auxiallary motor. I've been studying the difference
between His & Her Schooner and Scooner. In '30 Odd Boats'(?) PB
himself has difficulty finding an easy solution for the outboard. To
build one, I would combine the lead daggerboard, and cabin of H&H
Schooner with the square transom and outboard motor well of Scooner.
A canoe stern on a sailboat is great for a daysailor and
such, where your never too far from home and can always row back to
port. But on a cruiser, I would need that outboard.
Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls
>besides tweaking the noses of the double-ender purists here?;-)
> What would be the implications of fitting a transom stern on BW
No matter how you slice it, a cruising sailboat has to take
advantage of an auxiallary motor. I've been studying the difference
between His & Her Schooner and Scooner. In '30 Odd Boats'(?) PB
himself has difficulty finding an easy solution for the outboard. To
build one, I would combine the lead daggerboard, and cabin of H&H
Schooner with the square transom and outboard motor well of Scooner.
A canoe stern on a sailboat is great for a daysailor and
such, where your never too far from home and can always row back to
port. But on a cruiser, I would need that outboard.
Robert, Boatless in Niagara Falls
> What would be theIt would change the center of buoyancy of the hull,
> implications of fitting a transom stern on BW
and it would bring the lateral resistance of the
rudder forward, which would change the helm
balance of the boat. This would certainly change
the performance of the boat, and considering that
Phil Bolger is reported to believe that Birdwatcher
is his best design [among his body of work of great designs],
changes to a Birdwatcher would likely be for the worse.
Somewhere I recall reading, (probably PCB) that the
first ten changes that a boat builder typically thinks of
were actually considered and dismissed for good
reason by the designer during the design phase.
I've been rereading the WB 179 and relevant 2004 MAIB articles on BW.
The boat looks much better in the "flesh" than in the drawings. The
looks of it grow on one and its capabilities are certainly seductive
too. I wonder why Bolger went to all the trouble of the "patented
pinked stern" when he could have given the boat a transom stern with
less trouble and complexity, maybe fit a motor well like the Light
Schooner (although I'm not a fan of motors when one can row and would
not add it), and replaced the tiller linkage with something more
efficient (a push/pull tiller perhaps). What would be the
implications of fitting a transom stern on BW besides tweaking the
noses of the double-ender purists here?;-)
The boat looks much better in the "flesh" than in the drawings. The
looks of it grow on one and its capabilities are certainly seductive
too. I wonder why Bolger went to all the trouble of the "patented
pinked stern" when he could have given the boat a transom stern with
less trouble and complexity, maybe fit a motor well like the Light
Schooner (although I'm not a fan of motors when one can row and would
not add it), and replaced the tiller linkage with something more
efficient (a push/pull tiller perhaps). What would be the
implications of fitting a transom stern on BW besides tweaking the
noses of the double-ender purists here?;-)