Re: Birdwatcher 1 or II?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell" <John.Trussell@w...>
wrote:
wrote:
> How many angels can dance on the point of a pin?How big is pin?........
How many angels can dance on the point of a pin?
BW 1 was designed as a home built version of a Dovekie. Dovekie was ,"... a
strenuous attempt to produce a popular family recreational boat that will
function without an engine." Peter Duff built and marketed Dovekies as
"shallow water cruisers".
BW represents a substantial improvement over Dovekies in that BW's are self
rescuing from wind induced knock downs, If knocked down, it is pretty well
established that a BW wiil roll about 90 degrees and then right herself.
(Dovekies will roll past 90 degrees, flood, and can be difficult to
recover.)
I suppose it would be possible to rig a BW with water tight hatches, but
there will be openings to allow the crew to steer the boat and trim the
sails. BW is certainly the most seaworthy open boat I know of, but she is
still, ultimately, and open boat.
PCB has drawn a plywood boat intended to cross the Atlantic called
Centennial II (see Different Boats). Centennial II has a large watertight
volume and 2 leeboards, each with 110 lbs of ballast. Centenial II isn't
the work of genius that the BW's are, but it is much more suitable for
offshore work.
For most of us, who day sail and trail our boats to cruising grounds where
we spend a weekend or even a week cruising along shore, a Dovekie or a BW is
a better choice than Centenial II. But if you wish to go offshore,
Centenial II is probably the way to go.
Have fun and good luck.
John T
BW 1 was designed as a home built version of a Dovekie. Dovekie was ,"... a
strenuous attempt to produce a popular family recreational boat that will
function without an engine." Peter Duff built and marketed Dovekies as
"shallow water cruisers".
BW represents a substantial improvement over Dovekies in that BW's are self
rescuing from wind induced knock downs, If knocked down, it is pretty well
established that a BW wiil roll about 90 degrees and then right herself.
(Dovekies will roll past 90 degrees, flood, and can be difficult to
recover.)
I suppose it would be possible to rig a BW with water tight hatches, but
there will be openings to allow the crew to steer the boat and trim the
sails. BW is certainly the most seaworthy open boat I know of, but she is
still, ultimately, and open boat.
PCB has drawn a plywood boat intended to cross the Atlantic called
Centennial II (see Different Boats). Centennial II has a large watertight
volume and 2 leeboards, each with 110 lbs of ballast. Centenial II isn't
the work of genius that the BW's are, but it is much more suitable for
offshore work.
For most of us, who day sail and trail our boats to cruising grounds where
we spend a weekend or even a week cruising along shore, a Dovekie or a BW is
a better choice than Centenial II. But if you wish to go offshore,
Centenial II is probably the way to go.
Have fun and good luck.
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 3:10 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Birdwatcher 1 or II?
> In post #44466 Doug wrote the more offset mast of BW2 allows for
> sailing with the cabin/cockpit slot covers closed. If presumably
> these can be hard covers ( dogged/lashed like hatches?) how much
> water would enter in the brief time the boat was inverted?
>
> However, is the sealed Birdwatcher hull more stable once fully
> inverted: 1) empty, and 2) what about with contents, including crew,
> sitting on the inside of the inverted deck? Could the inside crew
> and wave action rock her sufficient to right?
>
> Also, will the floatation in a fully flooded BW1 or BW2 float either
> properly upright sufficiently high enough that her crew may bail her
> out?
>
> graeme
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
> <stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> > Surely the point is that both BWs are in in effect open boats,
> > although high-sided, with wide side-decks. Once they get much
> beyond
> > 90 degrees, as could be caused by wave action on a hull that has
> been
> > knocked down by the wind on the sails, they would fill up and sink
> > very quickly unless saved by sufficient watertight buoyancy.
> >
> > Howard
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
> > <John.Trussell@w...>
> > > wrote:
> > > I am not convinced
> > > > that they will self rescue if they are rolled by wave action.
> > >
> > > That certainly would be of concern and if true, I don't think it
> > would
> > > qualify then, as being offshore capable.
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 7/8/2005
>
In post #44466 Doug wrote the more offset mast of BW2 allows for
sailing with the cabin/cockpit slot covers closed. If presumably
these can be hard covers ( dogged/lashed like hatches?) how much
water would enter in the brief time the boat was inverted?
However, is the sealed Birdwatcher hull more stable once fully
inverted: 1) empty, and 2) what about with contents, including crew,
sitting on the inside of the inverted deck? Could the inside crew
and wave action rock her sufficient to right?
Also, will the floatation in a fully flooded BW1 or BW2 float either
properly upright sufficiently high enough that her crew may bail her
out?
graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
sailing with the cabin/cockpit slot covers closed. If presumably
these can be hard covers ( dogged/lashed like hatches?) how much
water would enter in the brief time the boat was inverted?
However, is the sealed Birdwatcher hull more stable once fully
inverted: 1) empty, and 2) what about with contents, including crew,
sitting on the inside of the inverted deck? Could the inside crew
and wave action rock her sufficient to right?
Also, will the floatation in a fully flooded BW1 or BW2 float either
properly upright sufficiently high enough that her crew may bail her
out?
graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> Surely the point is that both BWs are in in effect open boats,beyond
> although high-sided, with wide side-decks. Once they get much
> 90 degrees, as could be caused by wave action on a hull that hasbeen
> knocked down by the wind on the sails, they would fill up and sink
> very quickly unless saved by sufficient watertight buoyancy.
>
> Howard
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
> <John.Trussell@w...>
> > wrote:
> > I am not convinced
> > > that they will self rescue if they are rolled by wave action.
> >
> > That certainly would be of concern and if true, I don't think it
> would
> > qualify then, as being offshore capable.
Surely the point is that both BWs are in in effect open boats,
although high-sided, with wide side-decks. Once they get much beyond
90 degrees, as could be caused by wave action on a hull that has been
knocked down by the wind on the sails, they would fill up and sink
very quickly unless saved by sufficient watertight buoyancy.
Howard
although high-sided, with wide side-decks. Once they get much beyond
90 degrees, as could be caused by wave action on a hull that has been
knocked down by the wind on the sails, they would fill up and sink
very quickly unless saved by sufficient watertight buoyancy.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
<John.Trussell@w...>
> wrote:
> I am not convinced
> > that they will self rescue if they are rolled by wave action.
>
> That certainly would be of concern and if true, I don't think it
would
> qualify then, as being offshore capable.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell" <John.Trussell@w...>
wrote:
I am not convinced
qualify then, as being offshore capable.
Probably would make a difference whether or not the centerboard was
locked in the down position? I know the West Wight Potters are bad for
not coming back upright if the board is loose in the case. It has a
steel CB.
If I were to order plans I would certainly ask that question.
Perhaps a steel plate on the bottom like Fiji?
Nels
wrote:
I am not convinced
> that they will self rescue if they are rolled by wave action.That certainly would be of concern and if true, I don't think it would
qualify then, as being offshore capable.
Probably would make a difference whether or not the centerboard was
locked in the down position? I know the West Wight Potters are bad for
not coming back upright if the board is loose in the case. It has a
steel CB.
If I were to order plans I would certainly ask that question.
Perhaps a steel plate on the bottom like Fiji?
Nels
Nels--I don't disagree with anything you have said. BW's are much more
seaworthy than a lot of boats which have been used for blue water cruising.
They will self rescue from a knockdown caused by wind; I am not convinced
that they will self rescue if they are rolled by wave action. Given care in
selecting weather, a BW is quite capable in making a 2 or 3 day jump across
open water (say from Fl to the Bahamas) but, even aside from limited stores
capacity, a BW is not the ideal implement for extended offshore work.
Since most of us sail in summer weather alongshore, BW's lvel of
seaworthiness is several orders of magnitude more than we will ever need.
John T
seaworthy than a lot of boats which have been used for blue water cruising.
They will self rescue from a knockdown caused by wind; I am not convinced
that they will self rescue if they are rolled by wave action. Given care in
selecting weather, a BW is quite capable in making a 2 or 3 day jump across
open water (say from Fl to the Bahamas) but, even aside from limited stores
capacity, a BW is not the ideal implement for extended offshore work.
Since most of us sail in summer weather alongshore, BW's lvel of
seaworthiness is several orders of magnitude more than we will ever need.
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nels" <arvent@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 3:48 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Birdwatcher 1 or II?
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
> <John.Trussell@w...> wrote:
> > A heavier cb may increase initial stability to the extent in
> causes the boat
> > to float a little lower in the water. So will a couple of sandbags.
>
> I could be mistaken, but when I read the articles by PCB&F regarding
> the upgrades of the BW to BWII I get the impression that the larger
> weighted centerboard is necessary to improve the upwind performance
> and counter-balance the effects of the larger sail area. Then the
> additional buoyancy is necessary to support the weight of the
> centerboard. So it is a symbiotic relationship and one I would be
> careful about changing.
>
> >
> > BW's "seaworthiness" works well if the knockdown is caused by wind.
> > However, she can be rolled by wave action and if that happens, the
> cabin
> > will flood. Therefore, BW is suited for alongshore cruising
> rather than
> > blue water cruising. I'm sure that if you picked your weather,
> you could
> > make it to the Bahamas. But I would not consider BW (which was
> designed as
> > a homebuilt Dovekie) for a trip from the West Coast to Hawaii.
> >
>
> Some comments from the article regarding seaworthiness of very light
> displacement sailing craft and BWI & II in particular.
>
> "It has usually been taken for granted that ultra shallow draft
> boats are easily capsizable and need very careful handling: in fact
> are only fit for alert sailors in warm, protected waters with help
> at hand. But Birdwatcher has a combination of comparatively heavy
> bottom (1" thick plywood), high freeboard (about 36" from the load
> waterline through a length of 14' amidships), and broad decks to
> allow her to foat high in the water in a beam ends knockdown with
> deck openings carried well clear of the water. The result is a range
> of stability that allows her to recover dry from any sudden
> knockdown and, therefore, a tranquil mind. She can be sailed either
> boldly or absentmindedly without most of the usual hazards."
>
> After describing the water-tight interlocking hatches and doors to
> close the openings and the self-draining bow and stern wells, the
> article goes on, regarding BWII...
>
> "With her range of stability, generous positive buoyancy, and
> overall watertight envelope, she has the basic characteristics of an
> offshore boat, and in fact, we would rather go to sea in her than in
> a high proportion of production 'blue water cruisers'. That is not a
> strong statement. We think the currently fashionable type is a very
> bad type indeed! In fact, we do not recommentd Birdwatcher for ocean
> crossing, among other reasons because, unless saddled only lightly
> with astronaut type food and hand powered water maker, she would
> likely be overloaded with the necessary supplies, degrading her
> basic seaworthiness."
>
> This would suggest to me that BirdwatcherII, as designed is capable
> of off-shore passages, with the major limitation being her ultra-
> light displacement of 1500 pounds meaning one cannot carry much in
> the way of supplies for longer passages.
>
> To me this is an ideal design for cruising big lakes and coasts
> where one may get caught suddenly by a storm or if one decides to
> cross a bay or strait and still be capable of hiding in a tiny cove
> or creek.
>
> A West Wight Potter has sailed to Hawaii and a Drascombe Lugger
> almost made it around the world. An open TLC19 did make it. However
> these were publicity stunts more than responsible sailing which is
> not a part of the philosophy of PCB&F. Yet I would suggest that the
> BWII is as seaworthy as any of those designs and far more
> comfortable and versatile.
>
> Cheers, Nels
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.11/44 - Release Date: 7/8/2005
>
>
I totally agree. DAvid Lipsey
----- Original Message -----
From: Nels
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 2:48 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Birdwatcher 1 or II?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
<John.Trussell@w...> wrote:
> A heavier cb may increase initial stability to the extent in
causes the boat
> to float a little lower in the water. So will a couple of sandbags.
I could be mistaken, but when I read the articles by PCB&F regarding
the upgrades of the BW to BWII I get the impression that the larger
weighted centerboard is necessary to improve the upwind performance
and counter-balance the effects of the larger sail area. Then the
additional buoyancy is necessary to support the weight of the
centerboard. So it is a symbiotic relationship and one I would be
careful about changing.
>
> BW's "seaworthiness" works well if the knockdown is caused by wind.
> However, she can be rolled by wave action and if that happens, the
cabin
> will flood. Therefore, BW is suited for alongshore cruising
rather than
> blue water cruising. I'm sure that if you picked your weather,
you could
> make it to the Bahamas. But I would not consider BW (which was
designed as
> a homebuilt Dovekie) for a trip from the West Coast to Hawaii.
>
Some comments from the article regarding seaworthiness of very light
displacement sailing craft and BWI & II in particular.
"It has usually been taken for granted that ultra shallow draft
boats are easily capsizable and need very careful handling: in fact
are only fit for alert sailors in warm, protected waters with help
at hand. But Birdwatcher has a combination of comparatively heavy
bottom (1" thick plywood), high freeboard (about 36" from the load
waterline through a length of 14' amidships), and broad decks to
allow her to foat high in the water in a beam ends knockdown with
deck openings carried well clear of the water. The result is a range
of stability that allows her to recover dry from any sudden
knockdown and, therefore, a tranquil mind. She can be sailed either
boldly or absentmindedly without most of the usual hazards."
After describing the water-tight interlocking hatches and doors to
close the openings and the self-draining bow and stern wells, the
article goes on, regarding BWII...
"With her range of stability, generous positive buoyancy, and
overall watertight envelope, she has the basic characteristics of an
offshore boat, and in fact, we would rather go to sea in her than in
a high proportion of production 'blue water cruisers'. That is not a
strong statement. We think the currently fashionable type is a very
bad type indeed! In fact, we do not recommentd Birdwatcher for ocean
crossing, among other reasons because, unless saddled only lightly
with astronaut type food and hand powered water maker, she would
likely be overloaded with the necessary supplies, degrading her
basic seaworthiness."
This would suggest to me that BirdwatcherII, as designed is capable
of off-shore passages, with the major limitation being her ultra-
light displacement of 1500 pounds meaning one cannot carry much in
the way of supplies for longer passages.
To me this is an ideal design for cruising big lakes and coasts
where one may get caught suddenly by a storm or if one decides to
cross a bay or strait and still be capable of hiding in a tiny cove
or creek.
A West Wight Potter has sailed to Hawaii and a Drascombe Lugger
almost made it around the world. An open TLC19 did make it. However
these were publicity stunts more than responsible sailing which is
not a part of the philosophy of PCB&F. Yet I would suggest that the
BWII is as seaworthy as any of those designs and far more
comfortable and versatile.
Cheers, Nels
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
a.. Visit your group "bolger" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
<John.Trussell@w...> wrote:
the upgrades of the BW to BWII I get the impression that the larger
weighted centerboard is necessary to improve the upwind performance
and counter-balance the effects of the larger sail area. Then the
additional buoyancy is necessary to support the weight of the
centerboard. So it is a symbiotic relationship and one I would be
careful about changing.
displacement sailing craft and BWI & II in particular.
"It has usually been taken for granted that ultra shallow draft
boats are easily capsizable and need very careful handling: in fact
are only fit for alert sailors in warm, protected waters with help
at hand. But Birdwatcher has a combination of comparatively heavy
bottom (1" thick plywood), high freeboard (about 36" from the load
waterline through a length of 14' amidships), and broad decks to
allow her to foat high in the water in a beam ends knockdown with
deck openings carried well clear of the water. The result is a range
of stability that allows her to recover dry from any sudden
knockdown and, therefore, a tranquil mind. She can be sailed either
boldly or absentmindedly without most of the usual hazards."
After describing the water-tight interlocking hatches and doors to
close the openings and the self-draining bow and stern wells, the
article goes on, regarding BWII...
"With her range of stability, generous positive buoyancy, and
overall watertight envelope, she has the basic characteristics of an
offshore boat, and in fact, we would rather go to sea in her than in
a high proportion of production 'blue water cruisers'. That is not a
strong statement. We think the currently fashionable type is a very
bad type indeed! In fact, we do not recommentd Birdwatcher for ocean
crossing, among other reasons because, unless saddled only lightly
with astronaut type food and hand powered water maker, she would
likely be overloaded with the necessary supplies, degrading her
basic seaworthiness."
This would suggest to me that BirdwatcherII, as designed is capable
of off-shore passages, with the major limitation being her ultra-
light displacement of 1500 pounds meaning one cannot carry much in
the way of supplies for longer passages.
To me this is an ideal design for cruising big lakes and coasts
where one may get caught suddenly by a storm or if one decides to
cross a bay or strait and still be capable of hiding in a tiny cove
or creek.
A West Wight Potter has sailed to Hawaii and a Drascombe Lugger
almost made it around the world. An open TLC19 did make it. However
these were publicity stunts more than responsible sailing which is
not a part of the philosophy of PCB&F. Yet I would suggest that the
BWII is as seaworthy as any of those designs and far more
comfortable and versatile.
Cheers, Nels
<John.Trussell@w...> wrote:
> A heavier cb may increase initial stability to the extent incauses the boat
> to float a little lower in the water. So will a couple of sandbags.I could be mistaken, but when I read the articles by PCB&F regarding
the upgrades of the BW to BWII I get the impression that the larger
weighted centerboard is necessary to improve the upwind performance
and counter-balance the effects of the larger sail area. Then the
additional buoyancy is necessary to support the weight of the
centerboard. So it is a symbiotic relationship and one I would be
careful about changing.
>cabin
> BW's "seaworthiness" works well if the knockdown is caused by wind.
> However, she can be rolled by wave action and if that happens, the
> will flood. Therefore, BW is suited for alongshore cruisingrather than
> blue water cruising. I'm sure that if you picked your weather,you could
> make it to the Bahamas. But I would not consider BW (which wasdesigned as
> a homebuilt Dovekie) for a trip from the West Coast to Hawaii.Some comments from the article regarding seaworthiness of very light
>
displacement sailing craft and BWI & II in particular.
"It has usually been taken for granted that ultra shallow draft
boats are easily capsizable and need very careful handling: in fact
are only fit for alert sailors in warm, protected waters with help
at hand. But Birdwatcher has a combination of comparatively heavy
bottom (1" thick plywood), high freeboard (about 36" from the load
waterline through a length of 14' amidships), and broad decks to
allow her to foat high in the water in a beam ends knockdown with
deck openings carried well clear of the water. The result is a range
of stability that allows her to recover dry from any sudden
knockdown and, therefore, a tranquil mind. She can be sailed either
boldly or absentmindedly without most of the usual hazards."
After describing the water-tight interlocking hatches and doors to
close the openings and the self-draining bow and stern wells, the
article goes on, regarding BWII...
"With her range of stability, generous positive buoyancy, and
overall watertight envelope, she has the basic characteristics of an
offshore boat, and in fact, we would rather go to sea in her than in
a high proportion of production 'blue water cruisers'. That is not a
strong statement. We think the currently fashionable type is a very
bad type indeed! In fact, we do not recommentd Birdwatcher for ocean
crossing, among other reasons because, unless saddled only lightly
with astronaut type food and hand powered water maker, she would
likely be overloaded with the necessary supplies, degrading her
basic seaworthiness."
This would suggest to me that BirdwatcherII, as designed is capable
of off-shore passages, with the major limitation being her ultra-
light displacement of 1500 pounds meaning one cannot carry much in
the way of supplies for longer passages.
To me this is an ideal design for cruising big lakes and coasts
where one may get caught suddenly by a storm or if one decides to
cross a bay or strait and still be capable of hiding in a tiny cove
or creek.
A West Wight Potter has sailed to Hawaii and a Drascombe Lugger
almost made it around the world. An open TLC19 did make it. However
these were publicity stunts more than responsible sailing which is
not a part of the philosophy of PCB&F. Yet I would suggest that the
BWII is as seaworthy as any of those designs and far more
comfortable and versatile.
Cheers, Nels
In a message dated 7/7/05 11:29:01 PM Central Daylight Time,
lhp@...writes:
vexatious/inconvenient/impractical/whatever about the N.I.26 rig. If you are
inclined to do so, you can write me off-list atwmrpage@.... I'm not in the
market for such a boat, but I've looked at some profiles and didn't get any
notion than, other than expense, that the rig had any vices.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lhp@...writes:
> I had a Norwalk Island sharpie 26 and it was a bit of a love hateThis is rather off-Bolger stuff, but I'm really curious about what you found
> relationship due to the rig
vexatious/inconvenient/impractical/whatever about the N.I.26 rig. If you are
inclined to do so, you can write me off-list atwmrpage@.... I'm not in the
market for such a boat, but I've looked at some profiles and didn't get any
notion than, other than expense, that the rig had any vices.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A heavier cb may increase initial stability to the extent in causes the boat
to float a little lower in the water. So will a couple of sandbags.
We need to think about the basic BW concept. BW's are light boats (BW1
weighs less than 600 lbs empty). Their construction puts a lot of hull
weight in the bottom. Crew weight, also on the bottom, adds even more
ballast. BW's have a lot of flare and a lot of reserve stability. The
cabin, flare, and roof keep a knocked down BW from rolling past 90 degrees
and the weight of the bottom and the crew ballast will roll the boat back on
her feet as soon as the sail is eased.
BW's "seaworthiness" works well if the knockdown is caused by wind.
However, she can be rolled by wave action and if that happens, the cabin
will flood. Therefore, BW is suited for alongshore cruising rather than
blue water cruising. I'm sure that if you picked your weather, you could
make it to the Bahamas. But I would not consider BW (which was designed as
a homebuilt Dovekie) for a trip from the West Coast to Hawaii.
Up until about 10 years ago, I acquired boats based on fantasies about what
I might do with them. Then it occured to me that I never actually used the
boat the way I fantisized. If you are really going offshore, I think you
need a boat which can be knocked down by wave action and maintain watertight
integrity. Most of us will never go offshore, and for the way most of us
actually use a boat, BW is a remarkably satisfactory design.
John T
John T
to float a little lower in the water. So will a couple of sandbags.
We need to think about the basic BW concept. BW's are light boats (BW1
weighs less than 600 lbs empty). Their construction puts a lot of hull
weight in the bottom. Crew weight, also on the bottom, adds even more
ballast. BW's have a lot of flare and a lot of reserve stability. The
cabin, flare, and roof keep a knocked down BW from rolling past 90 degrees
and the weight of the bottom and the crew ballast will roll the boat back on
her feet as soon as the sail is eased.
BW's "seaworthiness" works well if the knockdown is caused by wind.
However, she can be rolled by wave action and if that happens, the cabin
will flood. Therefore, BW is suited for alongshore cruising rather than
blue water cruising. I'm sure that if you picked your weather, you could
make it to the Bahamas. But I would not consider BW (which was designed as
a homebuilt Dovekie) for a trip from the West Coast to Hawaii.
Up until about 10 years ago, I acquired boats based on fantasies about what
I might do with them. Then it occured to me that I never actually used the
boat the way I fantisized. If you are really going offshore, I think you
need a boat which can be knocked down by wave action and maintain watertight
integrity. Most of us will never go offshore, and for the way most of us
actually use a boat, BW is a remarkably satisfactory design.
John T
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: "oarmandt" <oarman89@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 4:54 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Birdwatcher 1 or II?
> I cannot see that 100 pounds in the centerboard will contribute much
> to stability. The boat will have to be heeled well over before the
> centerboard has much moment arm to contribute to righting moment, as
> compared to crew sitting 2 feet to weather. The birdwatchers,
> whether version 1 or 2, will be initially tender. Yes, the steel
> will help if knocked flat. I had a Lightning with 100 Lb stainless
> steel plate centerboard. I cannot say how much it helped stability
> (never sailed without it!), but I was always aware of the wrecking
> ball effect it could have if it got away from you. I looked hard at
> the BW2 style centerboard, even if not weighted, just because it has
> more area and a more forward center. I just elected to use the
> original type, though slightly larger, to get the lateral plane
> benefits without the complications. It seems that the original also
> has higher aspect ratio, so may be more effective unless restricted
> by draft.
>
> The other big part of the 1 versus 2 weight difference is the
> batteries and solar cells. I may install an electrical system to
> have anchor and reading lights primarily.
>
> Doug
>
>
> >
> > What are your thoughts on adding the heavier centreboard?
> > Difficulties? Improved seaworthiness?
> >
> > graeme
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oarmandt" <oarman89@v...> wrote:
> > > I am doing a mix and match birdwatcher.
> >
> > >I should post pictures as it worked out pretty neatly.
> > > Doug
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 7/6/2005
>
>
Hi Again,
I knew there was some more somewhere!
David Lipsey Is building a BW2 and has some photos here:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4photos/lst
Nels
I knew there was some more somewhere!
David Lipsey Is building a BW2 and has some photos here:
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4photos/lst
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <kayaker37@h...> wrote:
> >
> > The MAIB article is posted here:
> >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4/files/Birdwatcher/
> >
> Also there is a folder in the links section that has a link to
some
> building photos and a complete materials list. And other BW stuff
like
> a junk and a lug rig option.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/links
>
> Cheers, Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <kayaker37@h...> wrote:
building photos and a complete materials list. And other BW stuff like
a junk and a lug rig option.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/links
Cheers, Nels
>Also there is a folder in the links section that has a link to some
> The MAIB article is posted here:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4/files/Birdwatcher/
>
building photos and a complete materials list. And other BW stuff like
a junk and a lug rig option.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/links
Cheers, Nels
I cannot see that 100 pounds in the centerboard will contribute much
to stability. The boat will have to be heeled well over before the
centerboard has much moment arm to contribute to righting moment, as
compared to crew sitting 2 feet to weather. The birdwatchers,
whether version 1 or 2, will be initially tender. Yes, the steel
will help if knocked flat. I had a Lightning with 100 Lb stainless
steel plate centerboard. I cannot say how much it helped stability
(never sailed without it!), but I was always aware of the wrecking
ball effect it could have if it got away from you. I looked hard at
the BW2 style centerboard, even if not weighted, just because it has
more area and a more forward center. I just elected to use the
original type, though slightly larger, to get the lateral plane
benefits without the complications. It seems that the original also
has higher aspect ratio, so may be more effective unless restricted
by draft.
The other big part of the 1 versus 2 weight difference is the
batteries and solar cells. I may install an electrical system to
have anchor and reading lights primarily.
Doug
to stability. The boat will have to be heeled well over before the
centerboard has much moment arm to contribute to righting moment, as
compared to crew sitting 2 feet to weather. The birdwatchers,
whether version 1 or 2, will be initially tender. Yes, the steel
will help if knocked flat. I had a Lightning with 100 Lb stainless
steel plate centerboard. I cannot say how much it helped stability
(never sailed without it!), but I was always aware of the wrecking
ball effect it could have if it got away from you. I looked hard at
the BW2 style centerboard, even if not weighted, just because it has
more area and a more forward center. I just elected to use the
original type, though slightly larger, to get the lateral plane
benefits without the complications. It seems that the original also
has higher aspect ratio, so may be more effective unless restricted
by draft.
The other big part of the 1 versus 2 weight difference is the
batteries and solar cells. I may install an electrical system to
have anchor and reading lights primarily.
Doug
>
> What are your thoughts on adding the heavier centreboard?
> Difficulties? Improved seaworthiness?
>
> graeme
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oarmandt" <oarman89@v...> wrote:
> > I am doing a mix and match birdwatcher.
>
> >I should post pictures as it worked out pretty neatly.
> > Doug
The MAIB article is posted here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4/files/Birdwatcher/
But I don't think anyone has completed one yet. Anyone have
construction update photos? Of course, if this takes away from
building tme, go finish it and then take pictures :-)
Paul
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger4/files/Birdwatcher/
But I don't think anyone has completed one yet. Anyone have
construction update photos? Of course, if this takes away from
building tme, go finish it and then take pictures :-)
Paul
> After reading the article in WB some months back about BW 1 I wouldjust love to see
> something on the mark 2 version.
>
> Are there any photos/articles of the finished boat anywhere?
After reading the article in WB some months back about BW 1 I would just love to see
something on the mark 2 version.
Are there any photos/articles of the finished boat anywhere?
I had a Norwalk Island sharpie 26 and it was a bit of a love hate relationship due to the rig.
I reckon this would be such a good boat for a family with youngsters. I now have a Core
Sound 20 which is good but the lack of protection from the elements is a bit of a challenge
some days.
Rob Blackburn.
something on the mark 2 version.
Are there any photos/articles of the finished boat anywhere?
I had a Norwalk Island sharpie 26 and it was a bit of a love hate relationship due to the rig.
I reckon this would be such a good boat for a family with youngsters. I now have a Core
Sound 20 which is good but the lack of protection from the elements is a bit of a challenge
some days.
Rob Blackburn.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <kayaker37@h...> wrote:
>
> A picture would be appreciated, I didn't care for the original rudder
> system. Someone did post pics of the discs they had cut out for the
> new system, I was interested on how they were linked.
> > I did adapt the BW2 rudder system. I should post pictures as it
> > worked out pretty neatly.
>
> Do the plans call for a foam sandwich, or is the foam simply glued to
> the inside of the ply?
> > The foam insulation inside the structural hull panels looked like
> too-fussy construction
>
> Good point. Seems narrow in the area of the centerboard from the ride
> in one I had.
> >and cut down interior room in a very narrow boat,
>
> You have a fiberglass inner layer, then occume, then foam, then skin?
> Or is the inner plywood just epoxy coated? How thick is the foam? Is
> it Airex?
> >so I did foam foam sandwich outside with 4mm occume skins. I may yet
> regret not having the drip gutters.
>
> Is the coaming slotted where the mast goes in, or is there a hole in
> deck? How is it sealed?
> > They moved the mast even further off center, so it is outboard of
> the coaming. This makes it easier to arrange sailing with the slot
> cover closed.
>
> Are you building the pinked stern?
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
> >
> > Doug
Doug, please post plenty of pictures. Very interesting.
I just re-read a Bolger article and realised that BW1 is a few hundred
lbs lighter at 600lbs than my Micro (though much bigger), has lower
sleeker slipprier aerodynamics at 65mph, so qualifies better for the
1200km haul to cruise the Whitsunday Islands.
What are your thoughts on adding the heavier centreboard?
Difficulties? Improved seaworthiness?
graeme
I just re-read a Bolger article and realised that BW1 is a few hundred
lbs lighter at 600lbs than my Micro (though much bigger), has lower
sleeker slipprier aerodynamics at 65mph, so qualifies better for the
1200km haul to cruise the Whitsunday Islands.
What are your thoughts on adding the heavier centreboard?
Difficulties? Improved seaworthiness?
graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "oarmandt" <oarman89@v...> wrote:
> I am doing a mix and match birdwatcher.
>I should post pictures as it worked out pretty neatly.
> Doug
A picture would be appreciated, I didn't care for the original rudder
system. Someone did post pics of the discs they had cut out for the
new system, I was interested on how they were linked.
the inside of the ply?
Good point. Seems narrow in the area of the centerboard from the ride
in one I had.
Or is the inner plywood just epoxy coated? How thick is the foam? Is
it Airex?
Is the coaming slotted where the mast goes in, or is there a hole in
deck? How is it sealed?
cover closed.
Are you building the pinked stern?
Thanks,
Paul
system. Someone did post pics of the discs they had cut out for the
new system, I was interested on how they were linked.
> I did adapt the BW2 rudder system. I should post pictures as itDo the plans call for a foam sandwich, or is the foam simply glued to
> worked out pretty neatly.
the inside of the ply?
> The foam insulation inside the structural hull panels looked liketoo-fussy construction
Good point. Seems narrow in the area of the centerboard from the ride
in one I had.
>and cut down interior room in a very narrow boat,You have a fiberglass inner layer, then occume, then foam, then skin?
Or is the inner plywood just epoxy coated? How thick is the foam? Is
it Airex?
>so I did foam foam sandwich outside with 4mm occume skins. I may yetregret not having the drip gutters.
Is the coaming slotted where the mast goes in, or is there a hole in
deck? How is it sealed?
> They moved the mast even further off center, so it is outboard ofthe coaming. This makes it easier to arrange sailing with the slot
cover closed.
Are you building the pinked stern?
Thanks,
Paul
>
> Doug
I am doing a mix and match birdwatcher. (It is ready for decking
now.) I have both plans. I outlined what BW2 features I intended to
use on the BW1 in my letter to PB&F ordering plans and asking if they
were a reasonable combination. They declined to comment, mentioning
the time burden of responding to every proposed combination their
customers might come up with.
The BW2 mainsail is hardly any different than the solent lug option
on BW1. I elected to go with the smaller jib for simplicity and
minimal load on the unstayed mast. I slightly enlarged the original
CB design to match the BW1 alternate rig.
I did adapt the BW2 rudder system. I should post pictures as it
worked out pretty neatly. I used the anti-slap pad. The foam
insulation inside the structural hull panels looked like too-fussy
construction and cut down interior room in a very narrow boat, so I
did foam foam sandwich outside with 4mm occume skins. I may yet
regret not having the drip gutters.
The mast draining into the cb case was mentioned in the WoodenBoat
article, but it did not survive into the final edition of the plans.
They moved the mast even further off center, so it is outboard of the
coaming. This makes it easier to arrange sailing with the slot cover
closed.
Doug
now.) I have both plans. I outlined what BW2 features I intended to
use on the BW1 in my letter to PB&F ordering plans and asking if they
were a reasonable combination. They declined to comment, mentioning
the time burden of responding to every proposed combination their
customers might come up with.
The BW2 mainsail is hardly any different than the solent lug option
on BW1. I elected to go with the smaller jib for simplicity and
minimal load on the unstayed mast. I slightly enlarged the original
CB design to match the BW1 alternate rig.
I did adapt the BW2 rudder system. I should post pictures as it
worked out pretty neatly. I used the anti-slap pad. The foam
insulation inside the structural hull panels looked like too-fussy
construction and cut down interior room in a very narrow boat, so I
did foam foam sandwich outside with 4mm occume skins. I may yet
regret not having the drip gutters.
The mast draining into the cb case was mentioned in the WoodenBoat
article, but it did not survive into the final edition of the plans.
They moved the mast even further off center, so it is outboard of the
coaming. This makes it easier to arrange sailing with the slot cover
closed.
Doug
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <kayaker37@h...> wrote:
>
> Since we are finally moving into a house with a garage, I've been
> debating on getting BWII plans. I have the BW1 plans from Payson,
but
> was wondering if it was worth it to get the BWII plans or not.
I visited PB&F last year and we discussed Bird
Watcher. Phil believes that it is one of his most
important designs, perhaps the most important. We
watched a video that Suzanne shot of Phil capsizing a
BW I at their dock to demonstrate the lack of problems
and water intrusion and the ease of righting. The
motor on the, not on the plans, motor mount didn't
even get in the water. I don't know when they'll
release the video.
It was very impressive. Phil said that if he were
going to build one, he'd build BW I.
Having said that, I think the BW II would be more to
my liking. I'd appreciate the insulation, the planned
placement of an outboard, and the creature comforts
that BW II offer. I'm all for creature comforts when
I'm sailing. Having an unsinkable boat far from shore
or especially close to shore would be comforting too.
Buying both plans, studying them and then deciding for
yourself which to build seems like an excellent way to
go. There appears to be a very ready market for all
things Bolger right here.
Phil Smith
Watcher. Phil believes that it is one of his most
important designs, perhaps the most important. We
watched a video that Suzanne shot of Phil capsizing a
BW I at their dock to demonstrate the lack of problems
and water intrusion and the ease of righting. The
motor on the, not on the plans, motor mount didn't
even get in the water. I don't know when they'll
release the video.
It was very impressive. Phil said that if he were
going to build one, he'd build BW I.
Having said that, I think the BW II would be more to
my liking. I'd appreciate the insulation, the planned
placement of an outboard, and the creature comforts
that BW II offer. I'm all for creature comforts when
I'm sailing. Having an unsinkable boat far from shore
or especially close to shore would be comforting too.
Buying both plans, studying them and then deciding for
yourself which to build seems like an excellent way to
go. There appears to be a very ready market for all
things Bolger right here.
Phil Smith
The Bolger's encourage mix and match upgrades for both the Martha Jane and Chebbaco boats.
From WoodenBoat no. 179 I gather the raised panels shelter an overhanging afterdeck. The
motor clamps _under_ that.
The forefoot pad is only advertised to quiet the boat at anchor.
Mark
Paul wrote:
From WoodenBoat no. 179 I gather the raised panels shelter an overhanging afterdeck. The
motor clamps _under_ that.
The forefoot pad is only advertised to quiet the boat at anchor.
Mark
Paul wrote:
> I don't quite understand the pinked stern. Is the motor separated from
> the cabin so no fumes come it? Does this stern provide a shelf along
> the area in back? Is anyone building one where they might have
> pictures of this area?
> I wonder if Phil Bolger would mind if I moxed and matched. I really
> prefer Aeneas Precht's modified BW stern area. Although I would have
> an outboard on a bracket hanging off the side.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
> --Any water that gets into the boat--whether from rain, splash from the cbThe BW II has a 'gutter recess' along the side edges of the insulated bottom,
> trunk, or condensation-- is going to make things uncomfortable and there
> isn't any good or easy way to get it out of the boat. BWII uses foam
> insulation to minimize condensation and has provisions to pump through the
> cb trunk.
which neatly contains the drips and spills away from your gear and the
seat of your pants.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <kayaker37@h...> wrote:
I fully agree with John's comments and would like to offer some
further observations.
As you know, BW was a design to answer the wish list for
homebuilders who were looking for a simple to build craft comparable
to Dovekie. I think in some ways it turned out to be more convenient
with the walk-through cabin area. (As one gets more "mature" -
crawling around in a cuddy cabin becomes less and less appealing, as
does a tent compared to a motel room:-)
Also PCB has stated on several occasions that BW is his favorite
design which has to say something about it.
It seems to me that whenever some modifications are suggested to a
design and PCB&F decide to look/reconsider an update/upgrade then
the "Friends" part becomes very involved. And when she does, she
goes through every facet of the design from stem to stern and bottom
to top to maximize every aspect of the original design. This has
been the case with several of the original designs. Micro, Chebacco,
and Martha Jane immediately come to mind. OTOH, Phil himself seems
more inclined to come up with a completely new design such as MJ as
compared to Black Skimmer and the AS29 to replace Jesse Cooper. This
makes for a wonerful partnership but often leaves the plans buyer in
a quandary...
To decide between BW and BWII, the major considerations involve
three factors. Money, building time and the type of sailing one
wants to do and where they want to do it. For extended passages of
several days and off-shore capability, then BWII is well worth the
effort and time and cost. It would probably have the most capability
of any shallow draft boat in it's displacement range, including
comfort, safety and shelter.
I expect BWII will take twice as long to build and perhaps cost
twice as much to finish off and will have twice as many options for
extended cruising. For example the North Channel of Lake Huron, The
Bahamas, The Sea Of Cortez, all of which the orignal Birdwatcher
owner "might consider", will be very much a reality with a BWII.
With water-tight hard hatches it would be as safe off-shore as
anything else I can think of in it's size and superior to many.
But here is the deciding factor for me. One can use the BWII plans
to build a Birdwatcher at any level of finish from the bare hull on
upwards and the basic improvements will still make it superior to
the original. One could also do it in stages except of course to
decide ahead of time what you will eventually want the finalized
boat to be capable of. For example, the new stern and rudder,
centerboard and sailplan would be a given. I think the anti-slap bow
mod is worthwhile for when the motor is being used. But there are
several other compromises that could be taken to shorten the
building time and expense and get one out on the water and with
the "real experience" one could then decide what they wanted to add
next.
So I would purchase a set of BWII plans, compare the two sets and re-
sell the one I don't need. If I decided on the BWII I might consider
using slightly thicker plywood and that way even if I never finished
it as a ply/foam/ply sandwich, it would still every bit as good as
the standard BW. I could then add foam later on and interior lining,
hard hatches etc., and bring it up to a fully capable extended
passage, weather snug cruiser. And it would out-sail any Dovekie on
the planet I bet:-)
Having recently viewed the WDJ video from Bjorn Harbo, I can really
see that BWII is a smaller, lighter 2-person version of the
Jochem's schooner with almost as much capability and more
trailerabilty. It will go anywhere one can find a few inches of
water including canals and creeks, and also capable of crossing
large bays and straits.
Cheers, Nels
>but
> Since we are finally moving into a house with a garage, I've been
> debating on getting BWII plans. I have the BW1 plans from Payson,
> was wondering if it was worth it to get the BWII plans or not.Hi Paul,
I fully agree with John's comments and would like to offer some
further observations.
As you know, BW was a design to answer the wish list for
homebuilders who were looking for a simple to build craft comparable
to Dovekie. I think in some ways it turned out to be more convenient
with the walk-through cabin area. (As one gets more "mature" -
crawling around in a cuddy cabin becomes less and less appealing, as
does a tent compared to a motel room:-)
Also PCB has stated on several occasions that BW is his favorite
design which has to say something about it.
It seems to me that whenever some modifications are suggested to a
design and PCB&F decide to look/reconsider an update/upgrade then
the "Friends" part becomes very involved. And when she does, she
goes through every facet of the design from stem to stern and bottom
to top to maximize every aspect of the original design. This has
been the case with several of the original designs. Micro, Chebacco,
and Martha Jane immediately come to mind. OTOH, Phil himself seems
more inclined to come up with a completely new design such as MJ as
compared to Black Skimmer and the AS29 to replace Jesse Cooper. This
makes for a wonerful partnership but often leaves the plans buyer in
a quandary...
To decide between BW and BWII, the major considerations involve
three factors. Money, building time and the type of sailing one
wants to do and where they want to do it. For extended passages of
several days and off-shore capability, then BWII is well worth the
effort and time and cost. It would probably have the most capability
of any shallow draft boat in it's displacement range, including
comfort, safety and shelter.
I expect BWII will take twice as long to build and perhaps cost
twice as much to finish off and will have twice as many options for
extended cruising. For example the North Channel of Lake Huron, The
Bahamas, The Sea Of Cortez, all of which the orignal Birdwatcher
owner "might consider", will be very much a reality with a BWII.
With water-tight hard hatches it would be as safe off-shore as
anything else I can think of in it's size and superior to many.
But here is the deciding factor for me. One can use the BWII plans
to build a Birdwatcher at any level of finish from the bare hull on
upwards and the basic improvements will still make it superior to
the original. One could also do it in stages except of course to
decide ahead of time what you will eventually want the finalized
boat to be capable of. For example, the new stern and rudder,
centerboard and sailplan would be a given. I think the anti-slap bow
mod is worthwhile for when the motor is being used. But there are
several other compromises that could be taken to shorten the
building time and expense and get one out on the water and with
the "real experience" one could then decide what they wanted to add
next.
So I would purchase a set of BWII plans, compare the two sets and re-
sell the one I don't need. If I decided on the BWII I might consider
using slightly thicker plywood and that way even if I never finished
it as a ply/foam/ply sandwich, it would still every bit as good as
the standard BW. I could then add foam later on and interior lining,
hard hatches etc., and bring it up to a fully capable extended
passage, weather snug cruiser. And it would out-sail any Dovekie on
the planet I bet:-)
Having recently viewed the WDJ video from Bjorn Harbo, I can really
see that BWII is a smaller, lighter 2-person version of the
Jochem's schooner with almost as much capability and more
trailerabilty. It will go anywhere one can find a few inches of
water including canals and creeks, and also capable of crossing
large bays and straits.
Cheers, Nels
I think that Birdwatcher is an evolving design. Like many works of genius,
it is possible to find faults, but any correction increases complexity to
the point that the solution is in danger of defeating the original exercise.
From what I have read, the original Birdwatcher has a couple of faults.
--It is underpowered in light air and is, therefore, a dull light air
sailor. PCB's original solution was to develop a bigger sail plan using a
Solent gunter rig with a jib. In Birdwatcher II, a metal centerboard
provides power to carry more sail.
--The swing of the tiller is limited by the sides of the boat. BWII
addresses this issue by moving the tiller forward and attaching it to the
rudder with cables.
--Any water that gets into the boat--whether from rain, splash from the cb
trunk, or condensation-- is going to make things uncomfortable and there
isn't any good or easy way to get it out of the boat. BWII uses foam
insulation to minimize condensation and has provisions to pump through the
cb trunk.
--The original BW was supposed to rely on oars for auxiliary power and has
no provision for an outboard motor. Some builders added a canoe style mount
on the aft quarter. PCB has designed a "patent stern" for BWII to mount and
partially conceal the motor.
--Flat bottomed boats slap at anchor. BW II adds a round pad to the bottom
to reduce this.
BW I is light, simple, fairly economical, and can be built quickly. (I
won't say easily because the planks involved are long, floppy, and
heavy--definitely a 2 person job to assemble this boat) BW II will be
heavier, use more material, and initial comments on the foam suggest some
unanticipated construction complexities.
I suspect that BW I with the original rig would be the quickest to rig and
the easiest to row (because it is lighter). Rig time for BW I with the
solent rig and BW II should be identical. The additional weight of BW II
will make her harder to start and stop under oars.
Until someone does head to head sailing tests between the variations of
Birdwatcher, I can only guess. My guess is that the lighter weight of a BW
I with a Solent rig would make it faster in light air than the heavier BW
II, but that BW II could carry full sail in stronger winds than BW I/Solent.
I looked very hard at both Birdwatcher and Camper before I went off in a
different direction. If I were to build a BW, I would build
a BW I with a canoe mount for the outboard, a Solent rig, and perhaps the
new tiller arrangement. I do not find the other "faults" important enough
to justify the cost, complication, or weight of the "cures". But we build
boats to satisfy ourselves and what I find important (or not) probably
differs from others.
Have fun.
John T
it is possible to find faults, but any correction increases complexity to
the point that the solution is in danger of defeating the original exercise.
From what I have read, the original Birdwatcher has a couple of faults.
--It is underpowered in light air and is, therefore, a dull light air
sailor. PCB's original solution was to develop a bigger sail plan using a
Solent gunter rig with a jib. In Birdwatcher II, a metal centerboard
provides power to carry more sail.
--The swing of the tiller is limited by the sides of the boat. BWII
addresses this issue by moving the tiller forward and attaching it to the
rudder with cables.
--Any water that gets into the boat--whether from rain, splash from the cb
trunk, or condensation-- is going to make things uncomfortable and there
isn't any good or easy way to get it out of the boat. BWII uses foam
insulation to minimize condensation and has provisions to pump through the
cb trunk.
--The original BW was supposed to rely on oars for auxiliary power and has
no provision for an outboard motor. Some builders added a canoe style mount
on the aft quarter. PCB has designed a "patent stern" for BWII to mount and
partially conceal the motor.
--Flat bottomed boats slap at anchor. BW II adds a round pad to the bottom
to reduce this.
BW I is light, simple, fairly economical, and can be built quickly. (I
won't say easily because the planks involved are long, floppy, and
heavy--definitely a 2 person job to assemble this boat) BW II will be
heavier, use more material, and initial comments on the foam suggest some
unanticipated construction complexities.
I suspect that BW I with the original rig would be the quickest to rig and
the easiest to row (because it is lighter). Rig time for BW I with the
solent rig and BW II should be identical. The additional weight of BW II
will make her harder to start and stop under oars.
Until someone does head to head sailing tests between the variations of
Birdwatcher, I can only guess. My guess is that the lighter weight of a BW
I with a Solent rig would make it faster in light air than the heavier BW
II, but that BW II could carry full sail in stronger winds than BW I/Solent.
I looked very hard at both Birdwatcher and Camper before I went off in a
different direction. If I were to build a BW, I would build
a BW I with a canoe mount for the outboard, a Solent rig, and perhaps the
new tiller arrangement. I do not find the other "faults" important enough
to justify the cost, complication, or weight of the "cures". But we build
boats to satisfy ourselves and what I find important (or not) probably
differs from others.
Have fun.
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" <kayaker37@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 12:54 AM
Subject: [bolger] Birdwatcher 1 or II?
>
> Since we are finally moving into a house with a garage, I've been
> debating on getting BWII plans. I have the BW1 plans from Payson, but
> was wondering if it was worth it to get the BWII plans or not. Looks
> like improvements in the rudder assembly, larger sail plan and
> centerboard, mast drains in centerboard slot, foam insulation, and
> hard hatch covers, the pinked stern, self draining areas in front and
> rear, and round anti-slap thing on the front belly.
>
> I don't quite understand the pinked stern. Is the motor separated from
> the cabin so no fumes come it? Does this stern provide a shelf along
> the area in back? Is anyone building one where they might have
> pictures of this area?
>
> The simplicity of the BW1 has great appeal, but I may be interested in
> the rudder assembly, and larger sail plan and centerboard. Hard hatch
> covers may be of interest but I seem to remember someone saying the
> plans didn't go into great detail on them. I believe the foam may be
> just glued in, and not fiberglassed over, like on a Paradox? On the
> Newport Wooden Boat festival BW demo ride, I didn't notice much
> pounding to necessitate the anti-slap device, unless that is just to
> quiet things down at anchor, trying to sleep.
>
> I wonder if Phil Bolger would mind if I moxed and matched. I really
> prefer Aeneas Precht's modified BW stern area. Although I would have
> an outboard on a bracket hanging off the side.
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/37 - Release Date: 7/1/2005
>
Since we are finally moving into a house with a garage, I've been
debating on getting BWII plans. I have the BW1 plans from Payson, but
was wondering if it was worth it to get the BWII plans or not. Looks
like improvements in the rudder assembly, larger sail plan and
centerboard, mast drains in centerboard slot, foam insulation, and
hard hatch covers, the pinked stern, self draining areas in front and
rear, and round anti-slap thing on the front belly.
I don't quite understand the pinked stern. Is the motor separated from
the cabin so no fumes come it? Does this stern provide a shelf along
the area in back? Is anyone building one where they might have
pictures of this area?
The simplicity of the BW1 has great appeal, but I may be interested in
the rudder assembly, and larger sail plan and centerboard. Hard hatch
covers may be of interest but I seem to remember someone saying the
plans didn't go into great detail on them. I believe the foam may be
just glued in, and not fiberglassed over, like on a Paradox? On the
Newport Wooden Boat festival BW demo ride, I didn't notice much
pounding to necessitate the anti-slap device, unless that is just to
quiet things down at anchor, trying to sleep.
I wonder if Phil Bolger would mind if I moxed and matched. I really
prefer Aeneas Precht's modified BW stern area. Although I would have
an outboard on a bracket hanging off the side.
Thanks,
Paul
debating on getting BWII plans. I have the BW1 plans from Payson, but
was wondering if it was worth it to get the BWII plans or not. Looks
like improvements in the rudder assembly, larger sail plan and
centerboard, mast drains in centerboard slot, foam insulation, and
hard hatch covers, the pinked stern, self draining areas in front and
rear, and round anti-slap thing on the front belly.
I don't quite understand the pinked stern. Is the motor separated from
the cabin so no fumes come it? Does this stern provide a shelf along
the area in back? Is anyone building one where they might have
pictures of this area?
The simplicity of the BW1 has great appeal, but I may be interested in
the rudder assembly, and larger sail plan and centerboard. Hard hatch
covers may be of interest but I seem to remember someone saying the
plans didn't go into great detail on them. I believe the foam may be
just glued in, and not fiberglassed over, like on a Paradox? On the
Newport Wooden Boat festival BW demo ride, I didn't notice much
pounding to necessitate the anti-slap device, unless that is just to
quiet things down at anchor, trying to sleep.
I wonder if Phil Bolger would mind if I moxed and matched. I really
prefer Aeneas Precht's modified BW stern area. Although I would have
an outboard on a bracket hanging off the side.
Thanks,
Paul