Re: [bolger] Re: Boxes
In a message dated 8/14/05 4:30:20 PM Central Daylight Time,
derbyrm@...writes:
of the guns were bowsed up tight against the sides with a couple of eyebolts
above the gun ports. This makes sense, as the outward opening gunports would be
hardly prevent a cannon from rolling further outboard.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
derbyrm@...writes:
> As I understand it, the guns wereI think this is mostly accurate. In the illustrations I've seen, the muzzles
> secured with their muzzles pressed hard against the inside of the gun port.
of the guns were bowsed up tight against the sides with a couple of eyebolts
above the gun ports. This makes sense, as the outward opening gunports would be
hardly prevent a cannon from rolling further outboard.
Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Stability was probably the primary reason, but tumblehome alsodeflects
> the cannonballs somewhat so the full energy of the gun shot is notI read that with the early ironclads, it was to increase the
> concentrated on a small area.
effectiveness of the armor without increasing weight. In addition to
deflecting the cannonballs and part of their energy, a 10 inch steel
plate at 45 degrees to the trajectory becomes 14.14 inches thick along
the impact vector. The same would apply to oak.
I understand that it was to extinguish any smouldering fragments of wadding that were left behind in the gun, and could have ignited the next charge as it was being loaded.
Bill
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Howard Stephenson
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:18 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Boxes
Often wondered about this myself.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Chamberland" <cha62759@t...> wrote:
>The next round called for swabbing
> out the barrel of the gun ( I'm not sure for what, perhaps to clear
> the gunk or perhaps to cool it off) then repeat the process.
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
SPONSORED LINKS Boating magazine Boating safety Alaska outdoors
Great outdoors
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
I think we've concluded there isn't much, if any difference to
stability, but it would affect the angular momentum i.e. the way the
ship rolls, because the cannon would be farther from the roll centre
when outboard.
There would, however, be a significant improvement to stability by
reducing the width and thus the weight of the main deck. Lack of
power to carry sail often was a serious problem, "Vasa" being the
most notable example of how things can go wrong.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@o...>
wrote:
stability, but it would affect the angular momentum i.e. the way the
ship rolls, because the cannon would be farther from the roll centre
when outboard.
There would, however, be a significant improvement to stability by
reducing the width and thus the weight of the main deck. Lack of
power to carry sail often was a serious problem, "Vasa" being the
most notable example of how things can go wrong.
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@o...>
wrote:
> --- "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> > but were they brought right in to the centreline?
>
> if the cannons were on both sides, i.e. symmetrical load, what
> difference does it make to bring them to the centreline?
Maybe a classic, Civil War type Gatling gun, but one of the modern ones;
e.g. GE's Vulcan would have you going astern at several knots after just a
few seconds of fire. (Recoil from thousands of 20 mm rounds per minute).
The A-10, Warthog, fires 30 mm rounds that are each the size of one's
forearm.
I'm not sure, but I think a light, aviation type torpedo weighed about 1000
lbs. Le Cabotin might not float on her lines before the torpedoes were
launched.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
e.g. GE's Vulcan would have you going astern at several knots after just a
few seconds of fire. (Recoil from thousands of 20 mm rounds per minute).
The A-10, Warthog, fires 30 mm rounds that are each the size of one's
forearm.
I'm not sure, but I think a light, aviation type torpedo weighed about 1000
lbs. Le Cabotin might not float on her lines before the torpedoes were
launched.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nels" <arvent@...>
> Just to get back more on topic - I think the bow of Le Cabotin is
> almost ideally designed for a couple of torpedo tubes and perhaps a
> gatling gun above them. This would not interfere with stability and
> the spare ammo and torpedoes could be stored in the roomy foward
> cabin closets:-)
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
<John.Trussell@w...> wrote:
almost ideally designed for a couple of torpedo tubes and perhaps a
gatling gun above them. This would not interfere with stability and
the spare ammo and torpedoes could be stored in the roomy foward
cabin closets:-)
I like what PCB says about LMII in BWAOM regarding square boats.
"If you try to disguise a machine like this, say by raking the ends
or breaking the sheer, you produce a box with unconvincing
concessions to style that only emphathize that you're ashamed of
it...For her material and labor cost, Loose Moose is a fast, roomy,
handy, and seaworthy boat, as shipshape as a supertanker."
A decked over, high sided box with weight down low can survive some
pretty big waves without rolling over. I have watched flat-bottomed
canoes go through some pretty big rapids with weight on the bottom
with no problems at all.
Nels
<John.Trussell@w...> wrote:
> That is my understanding as well. The gunports had covers whichwere closed
> most of the time. The guns were pulled in toward the centerlinefar enough
> so that the covers could close--keeping most of the water out. Inuse, the
> covers would be raised and the loaded guns would be "run out"using tackles.
> The gun would be fired and the recoil would cause the gun to rollinboard,
> with its motion eventually arrested by the tackle. The gun wouldbe far
> enough inboard so that it could be reloaded and the processrepeated.
>weather and
> I have read numerous accounts of a gun breaking loose in heavy
> running amok until it could be resecured. I think the wholewooden ships
> and iron men thing is a lot more interesting to read about than itwas to
> experience!Just to get back more on topic - I think the bow of Le Cabotin is
>
> John T
almost ideally designed for a couple of torpedo tubes and perhaps a
gatling gun above them. This would not interfere with stability and
the spare ammo and torpedoes could be stored in the roomy foward
cabin closets:-)
I like what PCB says about LMII in BWAOM regarding square boats.
"If you try to disguise a machine like this, say by raking the ends
or breaking the sheer, you produce a box with unconvincing
concessions to style that only emphathize that you're ashamed of
it...For her material and labor cost, Loose Moose is a fast, roomy,
handy, and seaworthy boat, as shipshape as a supertanker."
A decked over, high sided box with weight down low can survive some
pretty big waves without rolling over. I have watched flat-bottomed
canoes go through some pretty big rapids with weight on the bottom
with no problems at all.
Nels
To extinguish any remaining sparks before ramming the next gunpowder
charge in. Failing to swab could ruin your whole day!
Paul Esterle - Freelance Boating Writer
Columbia 10.7/Matilda 20
North East MD
www.captnpauley.com
pages.preferred.com/~pesterle/
charge in. Failing to swab could ruin your whole day!
Paul Esterle - Freelance Boating Writer
Columbia 10.7/Matilda 20
North East MD
www.captnpauley.com
pages.preferred.com/~pesterle/
--- "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
difference does it make to bring them to the centreline?
Stefan
> but were they brought right in to the centreline?if the cannons were on both sides, i.e. symmetrical load, what
difference does it make to bring them to the centreline?
Stefan
Often wondered about this myself.
Howard
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Chamberland" <cha62759@t...> wrote:
>The next round called for swabbing
> out the barrel of the gun ( I'm not sure for what, perhaps to clear
> the gunk or perhaps to cool it off) then repeat the process.
Well I don't know the answers to most of the questions on this thread
but as to the wheels on the guns if I recall correctly in those days
the gunners had a process that went something like this. Put in
powder, add a ball, then some wadding to keep the ball from rolling
out and then fire the thing off. The next round called for swabbing
out the barrel of the gun ( I'm not sure for what, perhaps to clear
the gunk or perhaps to cool it off) then repeat the process. This was
from the muzzle of the gun hence rolling it back from the gun port. Of
course something had to take care of recoil.
Bob Chamberland
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@a...>
wrote:
but as to the wheels on the guns if I recall correctly in those days
the gunners had a process that went something like this. Put in
powder, add a ball, then some wadding to keep the ball from rolling
out and then fire the thing off. The next round called for swabbing
out the barrel of the gun ( I'm not sure for what, perhaps to clear
the gunk or perhaps to cool it off) then repeat the process. This was
from the muzzle of the gun hence rolling it back from the gun port. Of
course something had to take care of recoil.
Bob Chamberland
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@a...>
wrote:
> That was my thinking too.
>
> Howard
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Derby" <derbyrm@e...> wrote:
> > Well, I'm old, but I wasn't there. As I understand it, the guns
> were
> > secured with their muzzles pressed hard against the inside of the
> gun port.
> > There were no structures capable of holding them stationery near the
> > centerline. We're talking tons of metal and roll angles near ninety
> > degrees.
That was my thinking too.
Howard
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Derby" <derbyrm@e...> wrote:
> Well, I'm old, but I wasn't there. As I understand it, the guns
were
> secured with their muzzles pressed hard against the inside of the
gun port.
> There were no structures capable of holding them stationery near the
> centerline. We're talking tons of metal and roll angles near ninety
> degrees.
That is my understanding as well. The gunports had covers which were closed
most of the time. The guns were pulled in toward the centerline far enough
so that the covers could close--keeping most of the water out. In use, the
covers would be raised and the loaded guns would be "run out" using tackles.
The gun would be fired and the recoil would cause the gun to roll inboard,
with its motion eventually arrested by the tackle. The gun would be far
enough inboard so that it could be reloaded and the process repeated.
I have read numerous accounts of a gun breaking loose in heavy weather and
running amok until it could be resecured. I think the whole wooden ships
and iron men thing is a lot more interesting to read about than it was to
experience!
John T
most of the time. The guns were pulled in toward the centerline far enough
so that the covers could close--keeping most of the water out. In use, the
covers would be raised and the loaded guns would be "run out" using tackles.
The gun would be fired and the recoil would cause the gun to roll inboard,
with its motion eventually arrested by the tackle. The gun would be far
enough inboard so that it could be reloaded and the process repeated.
I have read numerous accounts of a gun breaking loose in heavy weather and
running amok until it could be resecured. I think the whole wooden ships
and iron men thing is a lot more interesting to read about than it was to
experience!
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Derby" <derbyrm@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: Boxes
> Well, I'm old, but I wasn't there. As I understand it, the guns were
> secured with their muzzles pressed hard against the inside of the gun
port.
> There were no structures capable of holding them stationery near the
> centerline. We're talking tons of metal and roll angles near ninety
> degrees.
>
> Roger
>derbyrm@...
>http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
>
> > I've read through most of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series. Yes
> > they were rolled in to allow the gun ports to be closed, but were they
> > brought right in to the centreline?
> >
> > Howard
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 7/27/2005
>
>
During the war of 1812-14 it was common practice on the Great Lakes to
convert merchant schooners to warships by simply installing cannon.
Unfortunately these schooners - or those otherwise rigged, were
designed to handle shallower waters and were intended to maintain a
fair bit of cargo lower in the hold. So now we have heavy cannons on
the top deck and little ballast down below. Add to this poorly trained
crew and officers and you have a good idea of the circumstances. IIRC
the greatest loss of life in the Great Lakes campaign came about not
through warfare but a violent line squall that hit - and sank - a
number of US and British (soon to be Canadian) ships. Once the went
over, they just sank. James Fennimore Cooper was on one of the few who
survived.
Bryant
convert merchant schooners to warships by simply installing cannon.
Unfortunately these schooners - or those otherwise rigged, were
designed to handle shallower waters and were intended to maintain a
fair bit of cargo lower in the hold. So now we have heavy cannons on
the top deck and little ballast down below. Add to this poorly trained
crew and officers and you have a good idea of the circumstances. IIRC
the greatest loss of life in the Great Lakes campaign came about not
through warfare but a violent line squall that hit - and sank - a
number of US and British (soon to be Canadian) ships. Once the went
over, they just sank. James Fennimore Cooper was on one of the few who
survived.
Bryant
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@p...> wrote:
> They were kept rolled in and very securely tied down. A ton of gun on
> the loose in rough weather was a very deadly thing. The gun ports were
> also very well secured, Ships often couldn't fire the lower deck
guns in
> a seaway or could only fire the windward guns.
>
> Time for you to get on down to your local library and start working
your
> way through the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forester. I have read
> every one a minimum of three times some as many as eight. They will get
> you a good feel for naval service of the time and they are all cracking
> good reads. His non fiction "Age of the Fighting Sail"" is a good
> exposition of tactics and limitations of Naval Warfare of the period as
> well as being an excellent short work on the naval side of the War
of 1812.
>
> HJ
>
> Howard Stephenson wrote:
>
> >I thought about that, or at least that having the guns farther
> >inboard would change the vessel's roll characteristics. However, if
> >it were beneficial, why didn't they run the guns inboard (they were
> >generally on wheels) when not actually fighting? Or was this done?
> >
> >Howard
> >
> >--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Will Samson" <willsamson@y...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>I can see how tumlehome produces a stronger shape. Also, it
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >would
> >
> >
> >>reduce deck area and thus weight up high to increase stability;
> >>
> >>
> >but
> >
> >
> >>what is the advantage of having the guns farther inboard?
> >>
> >>Howard>>
> >>
> >>I guess it's because guns are mighty heavy beasts so the closer to
> >>
> >>
> >the centreline the better. If they are 'way outboard, they add
> >(angular) momentum to the rolling of the hull, which is not a
> >comfortable state of affairs.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Well, I'm old, but I wasn't there. As I understand it, the guns were
secured with their muzzles pressed hard against the inside of the gun port.
There were no structures capable of holding them stationery near the
centerline. We're talking tons of metal and roll angles near ninety
degrees.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
secured with their muzzles pressed hard against the inside of the gun port.
There were no structures capable of holding them stationery near the
centerline. We're talking tons of metal and roll angles near ninety
degrees.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
> I've read through most of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series. Yes
> they were rolled in to allow the gun ports to be closed, but were they
> brought right in to the centreline?
>
> Howard
Actually, I was passing on something that I'd read, but not really analyzed.
The gun's distance from the section's center-of-gravity would be what
counts for stability. A difficult problem since the roll moment is the
issue, not really the static stability sitting in a calm bay. Add the fact
that one wants similar values forward and aft of the center of buoyancy to
avoid having a "crank" ship. (cross-coupling between roll and yaw) I'm not
surprised that ship design was a slow, evolutionary process.
Incidentally, the tumblehome made it much easier to board from a small boat.
Vertical walls are harder to climb than those that slant.
For seamanship, I really recommend Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin series.
Following the advice of many, I tried again to read some of the Hornblower
series, and, I'm sorry but they just don't hack it. They read like a screen
play. O'Brien took his battle descriptions directly from the logs and
reports in the Royal Navy archives, and they read true. (Yes, it's fiction,
and he does put his characters aboard, sometimes as guests/observers; e.g.,
USS Constitution vs. HMS Java, sometimes as officers, preempting the actual
mariners.) I think Cochrane was the source for many of his ideas. I'm just
now re-reading "Master and Commander" for the fourth time and getting some
better insight into the difficulties between England and Ireland and between
Castile and Catalonia. One also gets a variety of viewpoints since Maturin,
the physician/naturalist/intelligence agent is the consummate landlubber and
opposes violence (except when engaged in one of his many duels).
Don't judge by the movie "Master and Commander." It grabs scenes from a
half dozen books -- more like a "Coming Attraction" than anything O'Brian
wrote. It's a fun movie, and it brought home to me the implications of
packing so many men into such a limited volume, but ...
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
The gun's distance from the section's center-of-gravity would be what
counts for stability. A difficult problem since the roll moment is the
issue, not really the static stability sitting in a calm bay. Add the fact
that one wants similar values forward and aft of the center of buoyancy to
avoid having a "crank" ship. (cross-coupling between roll and yaw) I'm not
surprised that ship design was a slow, evolutionary process.
Incidentally, the tumblehome made it much easier to board from a small boat.
Vertical walls are harder to climb than those that slant.
For seamanship, I really recommend Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin series.
Following the advice of many, I tried again to read some of the Hornblower
series, and, I'm sorry but they just don't hack it. They read like a screen
play. O'Brien took his battle descriptions directly from the logs and
reports in the Royal Navy archives, and they read true. (Yes, it's fiction,
and he does put his characters aboard, sometimes as guests/observers; e.g.,
USS Constitution vs. HMS Java, sometimes as officers, preempting the actual
mariners.) I think Cochrane was the source for many of his ideas. I'm just
now re-reading "Master and Commander" for the fourth time and getting some
better insight into the difficulties between England and Ireland and between
Castile and Catalonia. One also gets a variety of viewpoints since Maturin,
the physician/naturalist/intelligence agent is the consummate landlubber and
opposes violence (except when engaged in one of his many duels).
Don't judge by the movie "Master and Commander." It grabs scenes from a
half dozen books -- more like a "Coming Attraction" than anything O'Brian
wrote. It's a fun movie, and it brought home to me the implications of
packing so many men into such a limited volume, but ...
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@...>
> Yes I guess there would be a slight increase in stability, because
> outboard they would be farther away from the CG than when they are
> inboard, but not by much, bearing in mind that the deck is crowned.
> And as I said in an earlier post, the easy way to achieve this end
> would be to run the guns inboard when not fighting. They were of
> course run in enough to close the gun ports but not, as far as I
> know, right to the centreline.
>
> Of course deflection of cannonballs would on average work slightly
> better with tumblehome. Another benefit might be that tumblehome
> would make it harder to board the ship from another one alongside --
> perhaps the real reason for it.
>
> What did you have in mind, Roger?
>
> Howard
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donm172001" <Don_Maurer@m...> wrote:
>> Stability was probably the primary reason, but tumblehome also
> deflects
>> the cannonballs somewhat so the full energy of the gun shot is not
>> concentrated on a small area.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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've read through most of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series. Yes
they were rolled in to allow the gun ports to be closed, but were they
brought right in to the centreline?
Howard
they were rolled in to allow the gun ports to be closed, but were they
brought right in to the centreline?
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@p...> wrote:
> They were kept rolled in and very securely tied down. A ton of gun
on
> the loose in rough weather was a very deadly thing. The gun ports
were
> also very well secured, Ships often couldn't fire the lower deck
guns in
> a seaway or could only fire the windward guns.
>
> Time for you to get on down to your local library and start working
your
> way through the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forester.
They were kept rolled in and very securely tied down. A ton of gun on
the loose in rough weather was a very deadly thing. The gun ports were
also very well secured, Ships often couldn't fire the lower deck guns in
a seaway or could only fire the windward guns.
Time for you to get on down to your local library and start working your
way through the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forester. I have read
every one a minimum of three times some as many as eight. They will get
you a good feel for naval service of the time and they are all cracking
good reads. His non fiction "Age of the Fighting Sail"" is a good
exposition of tactics and limitations of Naval Warfare of the period as
well as being an excellent short work on the naval side of the War of 1812.
HJ
Howard Stephenson wrote:
the loose in rough weather was a very deadly thing. The gun ports were
also very well secured, Ships often couldn't fire the lower deck guns in
a seaway or could only fire the windward guns.
Time for you to get on down to your local library and start working your
way through the Horatio Hornblower series by C.S. Forester. I have read
every one a minimum of three times some as many as eight. They will get
you a good feel for naval service of the time and they are all cracking
good reads. His non fiction "Age of the Fighting Sail"" is a good
exposition of tactics and limitations of Naval Warfare of the period as
well as being an excellent short work on the naval side of the War of 1812.
HJ
Howard Stephenson wrote:
>I thought about that, or at least that having the guns farther
>inboard would change the vessel's roll characteristics. However, if
>it were beneficial, why didn't they run the guns inboard (they were
>generally on wheels) when not actually fighting? Or was this done?
>
>Howard
>
>--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Will Samson" <willsamson@y...> wrote:
>
>
>>>>I can see how tumlehome produces a stronger shape. Also, it
>>>>
>>>>
>would
>
>
>>reduce deck area and thus weight up high to increase stability;
>>
>>
>but
>
>
>>what is the advantage of having the guns farther inboard?
>>
>>Howard>>
>>
>>I guess it's because guns are mighty heavy beasts so the closer to
>>
>>
>the centreline the better. If they are 'way outboard, they add
>(angular) momentum to the rolling of the hull, which is not a
>comfortable state of affairs.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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 thought about that, or at least that having the guns farther
inboard would change the vessel's roll characteristics. However, if
it were beneficial, why didn't they run the guns inboard (they were
generally on wheels) when not actually fighting? Or was this done?
Howard
inboard would change the vessel's roll characteristics. However, if
it were beneficial, why didn't they run the guns inboard (they were
generally on wheels) when not actually fighting? Or was this done?
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Will Samson" <willsamson@y...> wrote:
> >>I can see how tumlehome produces a stronger shape. Also, it
would
> reduce deck area and thus weight up high to increase stability;
but
> what is the advantage of having the guns farther inboard?
>
> Howard>>
>
> I guess it's because guns are mighty heavy beasts so the closer to
the centreline the better. If they are 'way outboard, they add
(angular) momentum to the rolling of the hull, which is not a
comfortable state of affairs.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@a...>
wrote:
the cannonballs somewhat so the full energy of the gun shot is not
concentrated on a small area.
wrote:
> I can see how tumlehome produces a stronger shape. Also, it wouldStability was probably the primary reason, but tumblehome also deflects
> reduce deck area and thus weight up high to increase stability; but
> what is the advantage of having the guns farther inboard?
>
> Howard
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Derby" <derbyrm@e...> wrote:
>
> >Similarly, the drastic
> > tumble-home kept the upper deck guns further inboard and gave the
> hull a stronger cross-section (circle vs. rectangle).
the cannonballs somewhat so the full energy of the gun shot is not
concentrated on a small area.
If one is a "Naval Architect" one doesn't want the hoi-poloi to understand
the magic of one's creations.
At General Dynamic I was given the task of completing the documentation of a
flight control system. To me, the aim of a document is to communicate. My
boss insisted that we must use the Z-transform notation which has the
disadvantage of being very hard to read when shrunk to 8½ x 11. It showed
his brilliance, but concealed the fact that the function was, for example,
just a low pass filter.
Somewhere I have a book on the ship design practices used in England ca
1800. A great deal of effort was spent making sure the cross section was
generated with arcs. Unfortunately, I don't have one for the French and
Spanish practices, and at that time, their designs were superior sailers.
(But that might have been due to the graft in the English shipyards.)
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
the magic of one's creations.
At General Dynamic I was given the task of completing the documentation of a
flight control system. To me, the aim of a document is to communicate. My
boss insisted that we must use the Z-transform notation which has the
disadvantage of being very hard to read when shrunk to 8½ x 11. It showed
his brilliance, but concealed the fact that the function was, for example,
just a low pass filter.
Somewhere I have a book on the ship design practices used in England ca
1800. A great deal of effort was spent making sure the cross section was
generated with arcs. Unfortunately, I don't have one for the French and
Spanish practices, and at that time, their designs were superior sailers.
(But that might have been due to the graft in the English shipyards.)
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...>
>> "A popular designer is fond of
>> saying that a box shape hull works
>>as well as a more complicated one;
>> well this is simply not true.
>
> So, complicated is simply better?
>
> What an ironic juxtaposition of words.
>
>
>
> 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 can see how tumlehome produces a stronger shape. Also, it wouldreduce deck area and thus weight up high to increase stability; but
what is the advantage of having the guns farther inboard?
Howard>>
I guess it's because guns are mighty heavy beasts so the closer to the centreline the better. If they are 'way outboard, they add (angular) momentum to the rolling of the hull, which is not a comfortable state of affairs.
Bill
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
SPONSORED LINKS
Boating magazine Alaska outdoors Boating safety
Great outdoors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
I can see how tumlehome produces a stronger shape. Also, it would
reduce deck area and thus weight up high to increase stability; but
what is the advantage of having the guns farther inboard?
Howard
reduce deck area and thus weight up high to increase stability; but
what is the advantage of having the guns farther inboard?
Howard
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Derby" <derbyrm@e...> wrote:
>Similarly, the drastic
> tumble-home kept the upper deck guns further inboard and gave the
hull a stronger cross-section (circle vs. rectangle).
> "A popular designer is fond ofSo, complicated is simply better?
> saying that a box shape hull works
>as well as a more complicated one;
> well this is simply not true.
What an ironic juxtaposition of words.
What little I've picked up from the recent efforts toward "earthquake
proofing" suggests that: flexibility is good, decoupling from the earth is
good (Caracas floats their towers on oil pontoons), one can add dynamic
stability with a servo system (Tokyo), and chaos theory is definitely
applicable. What isn't obvious is why this would apply to boat design.
The quote "saying that a box shape hull works as well as a more complicated
one" is ambiguous. First one must define "works as well." The now
discredited full bows of the ships Jack Aubrey sailed had a definite use.
They kept the bow chasers out of the water. Similarly, the drastic
tumble-home kept the upper deck guns further inboard and gave the hull a
stronger cross-section (circle vs. rectangle).
The stability curves for a box, a "wine-glass" hull, and the many variants
in between are different! Boxes are not unstable, it's just that their
limits are abrupt.
Trolls on the other hand do go unstable in that their amplitude sometimes
tends to increase with time. Poles in the right half plane if you will.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
proofing" suggests that: flexibility is good, decoupling from the earth is
good (Caracas floats their towers on oil pontoons), one can add dynamic
stability with a servo system (Tokyo), and chaos theory is definitely
applicable. What isn't obvious is why this would apply to boat design.
The quote "saying that a box shape hull works as well as a more complicated
one" is ambiguous. First one must define "works as well." The now
discredited full bows of the ships Jack Aubrey sailed had a definite use.
They kept the bow chasers out of the water. Similarly, the drastic
tumble-home kept the upper deck guns further inboard and gave the hull a
stronger cross-section (circle vs. rectangle).
The stability curves for a box, a "wine-glass" hull, and the many variants
in between are different! Boxes are not unstable, it's just that their
limits are abrupt.
Trolls on the other hand do go unstable in that their amplitude sometimes
tends to increase with time. Poles in the right half plane if you will.
Roger
derbyrm@...
http://home.earthlink.net/~derbyrm
----- Original Message -----
From: "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
> Bolgerados, does the below, derived from an analysis of earthquake
> causation of toppling buildings, hold water?
>
> "A popular designer is fond of
> saying that a box shape hull works as well as a more complicated one;
> well this is simply not true. Not only will its performance be less,
> it has an unstable form, and one that generates bad of violent motion
> in disturbed waters, and will topple over without notice, that is if
> we compare it to the bowl shape form, which without a doubt is a more
> suitable hull form for any small craft exposed to open waters."
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/message/6299,or
>http://tinyurl.com/8634t
>
> Graeme
Everyone has opinions, and most opinions are partially correct (and
partially incorrect).
By "box" I assume the writer is referring to a flat bottomed pram with
vertical sides. An un ballasted boat with vertical sides will, indeed
capsize very suddenly. In my opinion, a violent motion in disturbed water
is more a function of reserve bouyancy than hull shape.
Bolger boxes tend to be heavily ballasted. Any little boat will have a hull
that weighs less than its crew weight and with a 200 lb man sitting low in a
60 to 100 lb hull, these boats are well ballasted. Of course, if the 200 lb
man sits on the gunwale, the boat will "topple" very quickly (and this is
true regardless of hull shape). Most users of such boats understand this
and sit in the center of their boats.
The next size up is found in Old Shoe and Micro. Both have fairly heavy,
ballasted keels. Either can be capsized (anything can be capsized), but
stability is adequate for their intended use. The ballast keel and wide
beam tend to damp out any tendency to topple.
Finally, Bolger has carried "sharpie" design to its logical conclusion
(something he does even when it might not be prudent). Chapelle documented
the standard rules for sharpie design many years ago and pointed out that
less flare was used to increase speed. (And Chapelle's ideas on reserve
stability and seaworthiness may be a little strange by today's standards.)
Bolger has a theory that if the curve of the side matches the curve of the
bottom, the chine will generate minimal turbulence. His bigger boxes follow
this theory and tend to carry significant ballast in either metal or water.
As such, they heel, but rarely topple. When heeled, the hull shape is
closer to V bottomed than flat bottomed and motion is neither bad nor
violent.
Whatever you think of their looks (I don't much like 'em), there is nothing
which is easier to build or has more capacity than a box. And for most
people, they perform well enough. Whether it makes sense to build, rig, and
equip a box when there are so many really cheap, used, fiberglass boats on
the market is a question each individual must answer for themselves.
All generalizations are false, including this one;<)
Now let's see what those comments stir up.
John T
partially incorrect).
By "box" I assume the writer is referring to a flat bottomed pram with
vertical sides. An un ballasted boat with vertical sides will, indeed
capsize very suddenly. In my opinion, a violent motion in disturbed water
is more a function of reserve bouyancy than hull shape.
Bolger boxes tend to be heavily ballasted. Any little boat will have a hull
that weighs less than its crew weight and with a 200 lb man sitting low in a
60 to 100 lb hull, these boats are well ballasted. Of course, if the 200 lb
man sits on the gunwale, the boat will "topple" very quickly (and this is
true regardless of hull shape). Most users of such boats understand this
and sit in the center of their boats.
The next size up is found in Old Shoe and Micro. Both have fairly heavy,
ballasted keels. Either can be capsized (anything can be capsized), but
stability is adequate for their intended use. The ballast keel and wide
beam tend to damp out any tendency to topple.
Finally, Bolger has carried "sharpie" design to its logical conclusion
(something he does even when it might not be prudent). Chapelle documented
the standard rules for sharpie design many years ago and pointed out that
less flare was used to increase speed. (And Chapelle's ideas on reserve
stability and seaworthiness may be a little strange by today's standards.)
Bolger has a theory that if the curve of the side matches the curve of the
bottom, the chine will generate minimal turbulence. His bigger boxes follow
this theory and tend to carry significant ballast in either metal or water.
As such, they heel, but rarely topple. When heeled, the hull shape is
closer to V bottomed than flat bottomed and motion is neither bad nor
violent.
Whatever you think of their looks (I don't much like 'em), there is nothing
which is easier to build or has more capacity than a box. And for most
people, they perform well enough. Whether it makes sense to build, rig, and
equip a box when there are so many really cheap, used, fiberglass boats on
the market is a question each individual must answer for themselves.
All generalizations are false, including this one;<)
Now let's see what those comments stir up.
John T
----- Original Message -----
From: "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 8:21 PM
Subject: [bolger] Boxes
> Bolgerados, does the below, derived from an analysis of earthquake
> causation of toppling buildings, hold water?
>
> "A popular designer is fond of
> saying that a box shape hull works as well as a more complicated one;
> well this is simply not true. Not only will its performance be less,
> it has an unstable form, and one that generates bad of violent motion
> in disturbed waters, and will topple over without notice, that is if
> we compare it to the bowl shape form, which without a doubt is a more
> suitable hull form for any small craft exposed to open waters."
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/message/6299,or
>http://tinyurl.com/8634t
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Craig ODonnell <dadadata@f...> wrote:
> > That looks like a garvey hull.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.6/59 - Release Date: 7/27/2005
>
>
Bolgerados, does the below, derived from an analysis of earthquake
causation of toppling buildings, hold water?
"A popular designer is fond of
saying that a box shape hull works as well as a more complicated one;
well this is simply not true. Not only will its performance be less,
it has an unstable form, and one that generates bad of violent motion
in disturbed waters, and will topple over without notice, that is if
we compare it to the bowl shape form, which without a doubt is a more
suitable hull form for any small craft exposed to open waters."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/message/6299,or
http://tinyurl.com/8634t
Graeme
causation of toppling buildings, hold water?
"A popular designer is fond of
saying that a box shape hull works as well as a more complicated one;
well this is simply not true. Not only will its performance be less,
it has an unstable form, and one that generates bad of violent motion
in disturbed waters, and will topple over without notice, that is if
we compare it to the bowl shape form, which without a doubt is a more
suitable hull form for any small craft exposed to open waters."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Smallboats/message/6299,or
http://tinyurl.com/8634t
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Craig ODonnell <dadadata@f...> wrote:
> That looks like a garvey hull.
That looks like a garvey hull.
On 8/7/05, graeme19121984 <graeme19121984@...> wrote:
> This morning I recalled idly reading an article a few weeks ago
> about a revolutionary low drag boxy car design based on a fish. My
> recollection was that it was some small fish from near the Great
> Barrrier Reef, Australia. A design research team from VW Germany,
The easy way to get an AS14.5 would be to build an AS29 half-scale.
It would be 14.5' x 4' x 6.5" with a displacement of 912lb and a sail
area of 91 sq. ft.
A yawl rig would be a bit silly in that size.
Nonsense. A yawl rig would be fun. The Oldshoe is a yawl. Much shorter.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
It would be 14.5' x 4' x 6.5" with a displacement of 912lb and a sail
area of 91 sq. ft.
A yawl rig would be a bit silly in that size.
Nonsense. A yawl rig would be fun. The Oldshoe is a yawl. Much shorter.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The easy way to get an AS14.5 would be to build an AS29 half-scale.
It would be 14.5' x 4' x 6.5" with a displacement of 912lb and a sail
area of 91 sq. ft.
A yawl rig would be a bit silly in that size. There would be no need
for the mast tabernacle. It would be an open boat, of course, with a
foredeck perhaps. At 912lb, there would be scope for two crew or a
skipper and a few sandbags for ballast. My guess is that it would be
rather overcavassed.
Howard
It would be 14.5' x 4' x 6.5" with a displacement of 912lb and a sail
area of 91 sq. ft.
A yawl rig would be a bit silly in that size. There would be no need
for the mast tabernacle. It would be an open boat, of course, with a
foredeck perhaps. At 912lb, there would be scope for two crew or a
skipper and a few sandbags for ballast. My guess is that it would be
rather overcavassed.
Howard
Congratulations and cheers, Susan. Any pictures of your _SHRIKE_
zipping along?
Graeme
zipping along?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Susan Davis" <futabachan@y...> wrote:
> > As many of you can attest,
> > almost nothing beats the arrival
> > of the ***Blue Tube*** in the mail..
>
> I can think of one thing that beats it: LAUNCH DAY.
>
> HOORAY!
This morning I recalled idly reading an article a few weeks ago
about a revolutionary low drag boxy car design based on a fish. My
recollection was that it was some small fish from near the Great
Barrrier Reef, Australia. A design research team from VW Germany,
collaborating with a bioscience school of a southern Australian
university had searched through living and stored fish specimens for
a body plan that would make a better shape for a car. They were
satisfied they had found the "one" and had some preliminary digital
lines compleated. The VW team were returning to Germany. There were
no pictures.
Today all I could find were references to the Mercedes
Benz/DaimlerChrysler bionic concept vehicle, and a Caribbean reef
fish. Did anyone else see the Aussie? Oh well, they are probably
competing teams rushing to be first.
In the links below, read if you wish, the amazing attributes of this
fish bodyplan, and the impressive performance specifications of the
bionic concept car. Note the angularity, boxiness, very low Cd..(nil
chine eddies?)...
Look at the blue 1:4 scale model here
http://tinyurl.com/ceey9
and imagine it floating inverted like a boat hull passing through
the fluid water, rather than the faster car passing through the
fluid air right way up. Is that AS-like?
Imagine it inverted here (most comprehensive 4 webpages) looking at
the bowhttp://tinyurl.com/do98s
Is that a Bolger cutwater? Stepped keel? And so on...Please
enjoy...and comments?
http://tinyurl.com/d5jdw
http://tinyurl.com/8xwmk
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8129979/
http://tinyurl.com/dt9p6
http://tinyurl.com/dmxye
Surface small hexagonal plate structure? If its there I can't see it
in the boxfish pictures, nor in the scale model, nor in the full
size bionic concept car pictures. Anyway I recall reading some where
that Bolger thought a hull with surprisingly good performance could
be constructed entirely from small flat sheet plain geometric
shapes, little triangles and such like. I think it was a very long
term goal of his, however I think there is finished a developmental
smaller canoe sized design.
Graeme
(Also supersonic:http://tinyurl.com/aq5mj,and design from
nature:http://tinyurl.com/dgumy)
about a revolutionary low drag boxy car design based on a fish. My
recollection was that it was some small fish from near the Great
Barrrier Reef, Australia. A design research team from VW Germany,
collaborating with a bioscience school of a southern Australian
university had searched through living and stored fish specimens for
a body plan that would make a better shape for a car. They were
satisfied they had found the "one" and had some preliminary digital
lines compleated. The VW team were returning to Germany. There were
no pictures.
Today all I could find were references to the Mercedes
Benz/DaimlerChrysler bionic concept vehicle, and a Caribbean reef
fish. Did anyone else see the Aussie? Oh well, they are probably
competing teams rushing to be first.
In the links below, read if you wish, the amazing attributes of this
fish bodyplan, and the impressive performance specifications of the
bionic concept car. Note the angularity, boxiness, very low Cd..(nil
chine eddies?)...
Look at the blue 1:4 scale model here
http://tinyurl.com/ceey9
and imagine it floating inverted like a boat hull passing through
the fluid water, rather than the faster car passing through the
fluid air right way up. Is that AS-like?
Imagine it inverted here (most comprehensive 4 webpages) looking at
the bowhttp://tinyurl.com/do98s
Is that a Bolger cutwater? Stepped keel? And so on...Please
enjoy...and comments?
http://tinyurl.com/d5jdw
http://tinyurl.com/8xwmk
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8129979/
http://tinyurl.com/dt9p6
http://tinyurl.com/dmxye
Surface small hexagonal plate structure? If its there I can't see it
in the boxfish pictures, nor in the scale model, nor in the full
size bionic concept car pictures. Anyway I recall reading some where
that Bolger thought a hull with surprisingly good performance could
be constructed entirely from small flat sheet plain geometric
shapes, little triangles and such like. I think it was a very long
term goal of his, however I think there is finished a developmental
smaller canoe sized design.
Graeme
(Also supersonic:http://tinyurl.com/aq5mj,and design from
nature:http://tinyurl.com/dgumy)
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
thread.
Bolger non-sop sharpie designs may be apparently successful for a
number of reasons. However if *successful* largely means outright
*speed* then it may be that the hull is arranged so that it can
stand up to a relatively large and powerful sail plan, or be
relatively long, and so achieve a satisfying speed. If *successful*
means good manouverability then it may be achieved by lateral plane
adjustment, for example by using a relatively large rudder, and so
on.
However, AS-sharpie sop-theory conforming hulls ought do more with
the same power, and manouver well. Bolger writes of successfully
match racing Pointer, the precursor to Blackgauntlet. AS29 evolved
from OSTAR Class 1V Racer. Minimum Proa is a response to a request
for a craft, among other things, "capable of outrageous speed".
With regard to sop-theory, fact can be stranger than fiction
(fancy). The real world is often counter-intuitive, and, I dare say,
counter-counter-intuitive. Elegant, from-out-of-left-field,
inexpensive, thought experiments have withstood testing before now.
Re sop: all boundary layer fluid flows are viscous, think honey;
water is a thousand times more dense than air; air becomes much more
dense at supersonic flow speeds; and most supersonic airfoils are
of sharp simple geometric shapes. Further, in design, regions of
various pressures may be adjusted to enhance supersonic airfoil
performance by manipulating the intrinsic and relative arrangement
of the simple geometric shape.
Some have knocked Bolger's "boxy" sharpie design for years. Some
with undignified vitriol, even personal arrogant scorn. Smug
ridicule like, "its not 'boat shaped', so its not a boat its a box";
and "boats just have to have smoothly rounded curves. You ever seen
a cube-like, square, sharp-edged, flat-sided, pot-bellied, box of a
fish? Nah,its all wrong. Not meant to go through water!"
Well, perhaps they won't knock for much longer. What do Mercedes-
Benz know (and Bolger) that they don't? Watch this space. Watch the
fashion.
Graeme
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> There was a long thread on the topic of "sea of peas" (sop) on theThanks Howard for the tip. I'll have to go over there and read that
> Yahoo boatdesign group a few weeks ago.
thread.
> Several, me included, considered that it was fanciful to thinkthat in
> the real world the pressure on the sides and bottom couldequalized
> through a simple geometrical design approach. As evidence for thisI'll jump in, with respect mainly to sailing, displacement hulls.
> view, several apparently successful Bolger non-sop sharpie designs
> were quoted.
Bolger non-sop sharpie designs may be apparently successful for a
number of reasons. However if *successful* largely means outright
*speed* then it may be that the hull is arranged so that it can
stand up to a relatively large and powerful sail plan, or be
relatively long, and so achieve a satisfying speed. If *successful*
means good manouverability then it may be achieved by lateral plane
adjustment, for example by using a relatively large rudder, and so
on.
However, AS-sharpie sop-theory conforming hulls ought do more with
the same power, and manouver well. Bolger writes of successfully
match racing Pointer, the precursor to Blackgauntlet. AS29 evolved
from OSTAR Class 1V Racer. Minimum Proa is a response to a request
for a craft, among other things, "capable of outrageous speed".
With regard to sop-theory, fact can be stranger than fiction
(fancy). The real world is often counter-intuitive, and, I dare say,
counter-counter-intuitive. Elegant, from-out-of-left-field,
inexpensive, thought experiments have withstood testing before now.
Re sop: all boundary layer fluid flows are viscous, think honey;
water is a thousand times more dense than air; air becomes much more
dense at supersonic flow speeds; and most supersonic airfoils are
of sharp simple geometric shapes. Further, in design, regions of
various pressures may be adjusted to enhance supersonic airfoil
performance by manipulating the intrinsic and relative arrangement
of the simple geometric shape.
Some have knocked Bolger's "boxy" sharpie design for years. Some
with undignified vitriol, even personal arrogant scorn. Smug
ridicule like, "its not 'boat shaped', so its not a boat its a box";
and "boats just have to have smoothly rounded curves. You ever seen
a cube-like, square, sharp-edged, flat-sided, pot-bellied, box of a
fish? Nah,its all wrong. Not meant to go through water!"
Well, perhaps they won't knock for much longer. What do Mercedes-
Benz know (and Bolger) that they don't? Watch this space. Watch the
fashion.
Graeme
> As many of you can attest,I can think of one thing that beats it: LAUNCH DAY.
> almost nothing beats the arrival
> of the ***Blue Tube*** in the mail..
Unfortunately, my daggerboard jammed halfway down, but even crippled,
the His and Her Schooner is still remarkably pleasant to sail....
> "As for the I-60, we have at long last disposed of the jobHOORAY!
> (seriously needing doing, we fondly think) that has held us
> up and told on our nerves for many months, and expect
> to tackle the backlog after a short break, with I-60 at the
> head of the long list."
--
Susan Davis <futabachan@...>
Yes Howard I did. Remarkably, but purely coincidentally (I don't
think its Daleks -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/badwolf.shtml
),the capitalised "A S" seems to be showing up around me with some
regularity just lately.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...>
wrote:
think its Daleks -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/episodes/badwolf.shtml
),the capitalised "A S" seems to be showing up around me with some
regularity just lately.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...>
wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed that the Russian mini-sub now rescued wasan
> AS-28?
>
> Howard
Has anyone else noticed that the Russian mini-sub now rescued was an
AS-28?
Howard
AS-28?
Howard
As many of you can attest,
almost nothing beats the arrival
of the ***Blue Tube*** in the mail..
Hmmm, it is a red tube this time, well....anyway.
Topaz design consists of five sheets of drawings and
14 pages of narrative and building key.
PCB's letter, dated two days ago,
mentions among other things:
"...if waterskiing is in prospect we'd be
inclined to go to 75 H.P. or even more, to make
good speed with a crowd on board"
And more...
[ Insolent 60 spoiler alert = stop reading now = you've been warned!]
'
'
'
'
'
''
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
''
'
'
'
He goes on and writes:
"As for the I-60, we have at long last disposed of the job
(seriously needing doing, we fondly think) that has held us
up and told on our nerves for many months, and expect
to tackle the backlog after a short break, with I-60 at the
head of the long list."
almost nothing beats the arrival
of the ***Blue Tube*** in the mail..
Hmmm, it is a red tube this time, well....anyway.
Topaz design consists of five sheets of drawings and
14 pages of narrative and building key.
PCB's letter, dated two days ago,
mentions among other things:
"...if waterskiing is in prospect we'd be
inclined to go to 75 H.P. or even more, to make
good speed with a crowd on board"
And more...
[ Insolent 60 spoiler alert = stop reading now = you've been warned!]
'
'
'
'
'
''
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
''
'
'
'
He goes on and writes:
"As for the I-60, we have at long last disposed of the job
(seriously needing doing, we fondly think) that has held us
up and told on our nerves for many months, and expect
to tackle the backlog after a short break, with I-60 at the
head of the long list."
There was a long thread on the topic of "sea of peas" (sop) on the
Yahoo boatdesign group a few weeks ago.
Several, me included, considered that it was fanciful to think that in
the real world the pressure on the sides and bottom could equalized
through a simple geometrical design approach. As evidence for this
view, several apparently successful Bolger non-sop sharpie designs
were quoted.
Howard
Yahoo boatdesign group a few weeks ago.
Several, me included, considered that it was fanciful to think that in
the real world the pressure on the sides and bottom could equalized
through a simple geometrical design approach. As evidence for this
view, several apparently successful Bolger non-sop sharpie designs
were quoted.
Howard
IIRC Jim Michalak's Cubit was 13, and Pencilbox was 16 feet. Designed
per the theory. Both for beach cruising, with slot top cuddies, and a
step through bow on Pencilbox. I believe both performed well, but were
withdrawn due to their looks (or lack thereof).
Seawothiness? They were for protected or semi-protected water.
I reckon a cuddy added to 16 foot Dean'sBox is a goer. Keep the sheer
flat and do some of that Bolger magic with paint contrasts,
portlights, and mouldings (I'm thinking Anhinga profile).
Graeme
per the theory. Both for beach cruising, with slot top cuddies, and a
step through bow on Pencilbox. I believe both performed well, but were
withdrawn due to their looks (or lack thereof).
Seawothiness? They were for protected or semi-protected water.
I reckon a cuddy added to 16 foot Dean'sBox is a goer. Keep the sheer
flat and do some of that Bolger magic with paint contrasts,
portlights, and mouldings (I'm thinking Anhinga profile).
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "sam1boat" <sam1boat@y...> wrote:
> If I remember the write-up for the AS 19 it was meant to be a fast
and
> capable beach cruiser. When Bolger designed beach cruisers in the
15+/-
> foot range (I'm thinking of Japanese beach cruiser) they were not
AS
> types. Neither Micro or June Bug where designed for beach cruising,
if
> I recall correctly. So for me the question remains. Could you
> downsize an AS 19 to 14 or 15 feet, keeping things proportional, and
> have a reasonably functioning beach cruiser? Or does the hull form
> loose functionality and/or seaworthiness as it gets to this size?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, craig o'donnell <dadadata@f...> wrote:
On the June Bug study plan I have, I think its the same as that
in "Build The New Instant Boats", there are reduced reprodutions of
two plan sheets. The one with the plywood layout shows at the bottom
left a plan view and above that a cut away profile view. To the
right of the cut away view is a view showing on the left an half aft
end view, and on the right an half fore end view, side by side. The
end views have verticle and horizontal lines indicating,
respectively, the sides and bottoms of a number of transverse
sections, or slices athwartships, through the hull. The left hand
aft view shows the 90degree angle made by the verticle and
horizontal lines,as being bisected equally by the chine line, as
near as I can see. The right hand half fore end view shows the
90degree angle between the verticle and horizontal lines as clearly
not being bisected equally by the chine line. Here the included
angle between the chine and verticle lines is much greater than that
between the chine and horizontal lines. This can be seen in the
respective spacing of the lines too: the verticle section lines are
more widely spaced apart than the horizontal lines. This indicates
that from the bow aft to somewhere about midships the plan view
curve of the chines (and therefore the curvature of the sides),
exceeds the corresponding profile view of the chines (and the bottom
curvature).
In the June Bug the greater curvature of the fore-sides relative to
the fore-bottom means (from seas of peas) as the hull moves forward
the fore-sides shove more water out of the way than the fore-bottom
does. The sides exert more pressure on the water than the bottom.
The pressure forces the water to move to areas of lower pressure.
Some, of course, would rise as a surface wave. Some would cross the
chine to the lower pressure area under the flat bottom. The sideways
movement of the water over the chine creates power robbing turbulent
eddies.
Although, in the June Bug from about midships aft the sides and
bottom curvature look to be equal and it would appear that the
respective equal pressures should allow the waters displaced by the
hull to rejoin in an orderly fashion without turbulent chine eddies
from cross chine flow, this is confounded by the fore-sides
generated pressure having pushed water below which back aft means
there is more pressure below so water will be forced to cross the
chine here also, but in the opposite direction ie. from the bottom
to the sides.
If the sides and bottom curvatures could be alike for the total
length the respective water pressures would be alike resulting in
little eddie inducing flow across the chine and less power needed
to drive the hull at a certain speed, or more speed from the same
power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Of course, wouldn't pressure exerted on the water be a product of
force times area? And as the bottom usually has a bigger area than
the immersed sides (perhaps allowing it to shove more water out of
the way at a given speed), then couldn't a more gently curving
bottom at any given station generate equivalent or greater water
pressure than its more aggressively curved sides? But what of there
being two sides to consider? And what of the sharpie hull sailing
heeled? And.....?? .....
Writing of Blackgauntlet in the second paragraph on page 69
of 'Folding Schooner' PCB states that: " She has to be sailed on
her side and her crew must get used to normal sailing angles of
twenty, thirty, and more degrees of heel." In the next
paragraph: "Now it's a fact that while motorboats and multihull
sailboats can have hard chines without any special effect on
performance, a chine always degrades a single-hull sailboat's (sic)
performance at least slightly, and a deep and harsh chine, as here,
has quite a bad effect. The separate set of lines and offsets, page
73, shows about what the shape ought to be (a similar shape, but
with arc bottom, firm curved bilges, and plumb-ish topsides). It's
the form that Commodore Ralph Munroe evolved out of the working
sharpie. It has all the same virtues and vices, but more virtuosity
and less viciousness (don't ya love his turn of phrase?)."
I think that Blackgauntlet chine curvature is about what "seas of
peas" dictates, yet he wrote, "She has to be sailed on her
side... ...a chine always degrades... ...here has quite a bad
effect... ...Commodore Ralph Munroe..."
Contrast this with what Mr Bolger states at a later time in Small
Boat Journal #70 December/January 1990, page 49, concerning the hull
of the Minimum Proa (sailed fast, with the float "flying just clear
the water" p50): " This flat hull has the same curve in its sides as
it does in its bottom, so it will lose less to chine eddies than
most sharpies." In the next paragraph he states: " It is no
coincidence tht (sic) the hull shape looks like a Ray Hunt-designed
International 110. I follow Hunt's insight in sharpie design rather
than Ralph Munroe's, because I believe sharpies have to sail on
their bottoms."
Confused?? I believe there is an enormous amount of evolving
studious thought behind what Mr Bolger states or draws. I've got
some guesses, which I won't offer, as to why he doesn't publish all
the background to his ideas and their development. We are able to
catch glimpses, but often enigmatic flashes of insight. I wish he'd
put together a structured course for the more challenged such as
myself - say, Bolger on Boats - The Background 101. The apparent
reasonableness and elegance, of "seas of peas" theory has much
appeal. I don't know if its been tank tested, or numerically
modelled. It may be just a thought experiment, but so was relativity.
Space-time is curved and where exceedingly curved there lies a
black hole. That is where this may be headed - falling - to be
ripped apart by tidal forces - or perhaps i'm just falling asleep.
it's gotten late.
Graeme
> So I don't know what you mean by "excessive side curvature" in aJune Bug.
> Craig O'DonnellHi Craig, "excessive side curvature":
On the June Bug study plan I have, I think its the same as that
in "Build The New Instant Boats", there are reduced reprodutions of
two plan sheets. The one with the plywood layout shows at the bottom
left a plan view and above that a cut away profile view. To the
right of the cut away view is a view showing on the left an half aft
end view, and on the right an half fore end view, side by side. The
end views have verticle and horizontal lines indicating,
respectively, the sides and bottoms of a number of transverse
sections, or slices athwartships, through the hull. The left hand
aft view shows the 90degree angle made by the verticle and
horizontal lines,as being bisected equally by the chine line, as
near as I can see. The right hand half fore end view shows the
90degree angle between the verticle and horizontal lines as clearly
not being bisected equally by the chine line. Here the included
angle between the chine and verticle lines is much greater than that
between the chine and horizontal lines. This can be seen in the
respective spacing of the lines too: the verticle section lines are
more widely spaced apart than the horizontal lines. This indicates
that from the bow aft to somewhere about midships the plan view
curve of the chines (and therefore the curvature of the sides),
exceeds the corresponding profile view of the chines (and the bottom
curvature).
In the June Bug the greater curvature of the fore-sides relative to
the fore-bottom means (from seas of peas) as the hull moves forward
the fore-sides shove more water out of the way than the fore-bottom
does. The sides exert more pressure on the water than the bottom.
The pressure forces the water to move to areas of lower pressure.
Some, of course, would rise as a surface wave. Some would cross the
chine to the lower pressure area under the flat bottom. The sideways
movement of the water over the chine creates power robbing turbulent
eddies.
Although, in the June Bug from about midships aft the sides and
bottom curvature look to be equal and it would appear that the
respective equal pressures should allow the waters displaced by the
hull to rejoin in an orderly fashion without turbulent chine eddies
from cross chine flow, this is confounded by the fore-sides
generated pressure having pushed water below which back aft means
there is more pressure below so water will be forced to cross the
chine here also, but in the opposite direction ie. from the bottom
to the sides.
If the sides and bottom curvatures could be alike for the total
length the respective water pressures would be alike resulting in
little eddie inducing flow across the chine and less power needed
to drive the hull at a certain speed, or more speed from the same
power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Of course, wouldn't pressure exerted on the water be a product of
force times area? And as the bottom usually has a bigger area than
the immersed sides (perhaps allowing it to shove more water out of
the way at a given speed), then couldn't a more gently curving
bottom at any given station generate equivalent or greater water
pressure than its more aggressively curved sides? But what of there
being two sides to consider? And what of the sharpie hull sailing
heeled? And.....?? .....
Writing of Blackgauntlet in the second paragraph on page 69
of 'Folding Schooner' PCB states that: " She has to be sailed on
her side and her crew must get used to normal sailing angles of
twenty, thirty, and more degrees of heel." In the next
paragraph: "Now it's a fact that while motorboats and multihull
sailboats can have hard chines without any special effect on
performance, a chine always degrades a single-hull sailboat's (sic)
performance at least slightly, and a deep and harsh chine, as here,
has quite a bad effect. The separate set of lines and offsets, page
73, shows about what the shape ought to be (a similar shape, but
with arc bottom, firm curved bilges, and plumb-ish topsides). It's
the form that Commodore Ralph Munroe evolved out of the working
sharpie. It has all the same virtues and vices, but more virtuosity
and less viciousness (don't ya love his turn of phrase?)."
I think that Blackgauntlet chine curvature is about what "seas of
peas" dictates, yet he wrote, "She has to be sailed on her
side... ...a chine always degrades... ...here has quite a bad
effect... ...Commodore Ralph Munroe..."
Contrast this with what Mr Bolger states at a later time in Small
Boat Journal #70 December/January 1990, page 49, concerning the hull
of the Minimum Proa (sailed fast, with the float "flying just clear
the water" p50): " This flat hull has the same curve in its sides as
it does in its bottom, so it will lose less to chine eddies than
most sharpies." In the next paragraph he states: " It is no
coincidence tht (sic) the hull shape looks like a Ray Hunt-designed
International 110. I follow Hunt's insight in sharpie design rather
than Ralph Munroe's, because I believe sharpies have to sail on
their bottoms."
Confused?? I believe there is an enormous amount of evolving
studious thought behind what Mr Bolger states or draws. I've got
some guesses, which I won't offer, as to why he doesn't publish all
the background to his ideas and their development. We are able to
catch glimpses, but often enigmatic flashes of insight. I wish he'd
put together a structured course for the more challenged such as
myself - say, Bolger on Boats - The Background 101. The apparent
reasonableness and elegance, of "seas of peas" theory has much
appeal. I don't know if its been tank tested, or numerically
modelled. It may be just a thought experiment, but so was relativity.
Space-time is curved and where exceedingly curved there lies a
black hole. That is where this may be headed - falling - to be
ripped apart by tidal forces - or perhaps i'm just falling asleep.
it's gotten late.
Graeme
About a dozen years ago or more, Bolger wrote an article to explain
his theory of how water molecules move around a boat in motion. To
make it easier for the reader to visualize, he invited them to think
of the molecules as a seas of peas, and then proceeded to explain how
the shape of the hull would or would not induce the peas to form
eddies or create drag. It helped the layman visualize what was going
on as the hull moved toward the water, actually enabling those of us
unshcooled in this subject comprehend a fairly complex process.
As far as I know, this manuscript was never published. He showed it
to me during a visit, and I assume Jim Michalak saw it in the same
manner. BTW, I didn't specifically ask him if he created the phrase
sea of peas, but I expect he did.
Gary Blankenship
--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@o...>
wrote:
20Shaping2
his theory of how water molecules move around a boat in motion. To
make it easier for the reader to visualize, he invited them to think
of the molecules as a seas of peas, and then proceeded to explain how
the shape of the hull would or would not induce the peas to form
eddies or create drag. It helped the layman visualize what was going
on as the hull moved toward the water, actually enabling those of us
unshcooled in this subject comprehend a fairly complex process.
As far as I know, this manuscript was never published. He showed it
to me during a visit, and I assume Jim Michalak saw it in the same
manner. BTW, I didn't specifically ask him if he created the phrase
sea of peas, but I expect he did.
Gary Blankenship
--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@o...>
wrote:
> --- Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:Bolger:
> > > "seas of peas" theory
> >
> > Can anybody please cite the origin and/or
> > the original place the phrase 'sea of peas'
> > was written?
> >
> > People attribute it to Phil Bolger but I
> > cannot recall him using those words
> > in anything I have read.
>
> (One more time:)
> Jim Michalak says that he got it in letters and a manuscript from
>http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2004/0901/index.htm#Hull%
20Shaping2
>
> Looks like this is the closest you can get.
>
> Cheers,
> Stefan
If I remember the write-up for the AS 19 it was meant to be a fast and
capable beach cruiser. When Bolger designed beach cruisers in the 15+/-
foot range (I'm thinking of Japanese beach cruiser) they were not AS
types. Neither Micro or June Bug where designed for beach cruising, if
I recall correctly. So for me the question remains. Could you
downsize an AS 19 to 14 or 15 feet, keeping things proportional, and
have a reasonably functioning beach cruiser? Or does the hull form
loose functionality and/or seaworthiness as it gets to this size?
Sharpie and skiff hulls scale up and down fairly well, but as you scale
down you rapidly lose stability.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
capable beach cruiser. When Bolger designed beach cruisers in the 15+/-
foot range (I'm thinking of Japanese beach cruiser) they were not AS
types. Neither Micro or June Bug where designed for beach cruising, if
I recall correctly. So for me the question remains. Could you
downsize an AS 19 to 14 or 15 feet, keeping things proportional, and
have a reasonably functioning beach cruiser? Or does the hull form
loose functionality and/or seaworthiness as it gets to this size?
Sharpie and skiff hulls scale up and down fairly well, but as you scale
down you rapidly lose stability.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
Jim Michalak says that he got it in letters and a manuscript from Bolger:
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2004/0901/index.htm#Hull%20Shaping2
Looks like this is the closest you can get.
Cheers,
Stefan
> > "seas of peas" theory(One more time:)
>
> Can anybody please cite the origin and/or
> the original place the phrase 'sea of peas'
> was written?
>
> People attribute it to Phil Bolger but I
> cannot recall him using those words
> in anything I have read.
Jim Michalak says that he got it in letters and a manuscript from Bolger:
http://marina.fortunecity.com/breakwater/274/2004/0901/index.htm#Hull%20Shaping2
Looks like this is the closest you can get.
Cheers,
Stefan
If I remember the write-up for the AS 19 it was meant to be a fast and
capable beach cruiser. When Bolger designed beach cruisers in the 15+/-
foot range (I'm thinking of Japanese beach cruiser) they were not AS
types. Neither Micro or June Bug where designed for beach cruising, if
I recall correctly. So for me the question remains. Could you
downsize an AS 19 to 14 or 15 feet, keeping things proportional, and
have a reasonably functioning beach cruiser? Or does the hull form
loose functionality and/or seaworthiness as it gets to this size?
capable beach cruiser. When Bolger designed beach cruisers in the 15+/-
foot range (I'm thinking of Japanese beach cruiser) they were not AS
types. Neither Micro or June Bug where designed for beach cruising, if
I recall correctly. So for me the question remains. Could you
downsize an AS 19 to 14 or 15 feet, keeping things proportional, and
have a reasonably functioning beach cruiser? Or does the hull form
loose functionality and/or seaworthiness as it gets to this size?
> "seas of peas" theoryCan anybody please cite the origin and/or
the original place the phrase 'sea of peas'
was written?
People attribute it to Phil Bolger but I
cannot recall him using those words
in anything I have read.
With a dipensation made for side flare, an earlier larger design,
#267 Blackgauntlet ll (33' 6"x 5' 8''bottom) , would accord with the
advanced sharpie "seas of peas" theory, as would #231 Otter l (19'
6"x 3' 8"bottom ); however I don't think any "Instant Boats"
including June Bug (excess side curvature) would. Micro may,
allowing for a pinched in bow, but as Sam just indicated the AS
type can sit on its bottom without fixed keel.
Some sharpie designers have said rocker is good. Some have used less. When
I say designers, I mean everyone from Uncle Henry down North Carolina way
to L F Herreshoff.
In any event, I have it from Bolger that the Peero is based on the June
Bug, but with more rocker, in fact, if scaled up, excessive rocker ...
because rocker helps a very small boat be maneuverable and reduces wetted
surface.
So I don't know what you mean by "excessive side curvature" in a June Bug.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
#267 Blackgauntlet ll (33' 6"x 5' 8''bottom) , would accord with the
advanced sharpie "seas of peas" theory, as would #231 Otter l (19'
6"x 3' 8"bottom ); however I don't think any "Instant Boats"
including June Bug (excess side curvature) would. Micro may,
allowing for a pinched in bow, but as Sam just indicated the AS
type can sit on its bottom without fixed keel.
Some sharpie designers have said rocker is good. Some have used less. When
I say designers, I mean everyone from Uncle Henry down North Carolina way
to L F Herreshoff.
In any event, I have it from Bolger that the Peero is based on the June
Bug, but with more rocker, in fact, if scaled up, excessive rocker ...
because rocker helps a very small boat be maneuverable and reduces wetted
surface.
So I don't know what you mean by "excessive side curvature" in a June Bug.
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Am I wrong? I thought the "AS" designation of PCB for his advanced
sharpies referred partially to the fore and aft bottom being held
quite high out of the water in order to enhance manouverability,
especially reducing crankiness and getting stuck in stays, and to
lower wetted surface area. Mainly though, it referred to a design
solution arising from his "seas of peas" theory, that is: that
*chine curvature in plan and profile be equal*. This would have it
that as the hull moves forward water is shoved aside up front and
let flow back in aft with equal pressure exerted by bottom and side
because of their equal curvature. The equal pressure means that
water doesn't flow sideways one way or another across the chine thus
minimising turbulence and drag from chine eddies. On the drawings
the end elevation fore-and-aft views show the angles with the chine
line, made by the sides verticle station lines and the corresponding
bottom horizontal lines, as equal. Jim Michalak has written about
this, here and there.
Other considerations (looks? excessively square cut off bow or very
long overhanging bow?) seem to cause PCB to sometimes fudge this
design principle more or less. The 19' 6" minimum proa, 23' 6"
sharpie catamaran concept, and Pirogue 12, noteably all with
relatively narrow hulls, seem to be in the pure form. Of those AS
types with relatively wider hulls only AS19 seems to be in the pure
form. The others seem to mostly deviate in the bow area with the
chine curvature in plan being pinched in toward a more or less
pointy bow. This ought to generate drag, per the theory.
With a dipensation made for side flare, an earlier larger design,
#267 Blackgauntlet ll (33' 6"x 5' 8''bottom) , would accord with the
advanced sharpie "seas of peas" theory, as would #231 Otter l (19'
6"x 3' 8"bottom ); however I don't think any "Instant Boats"
including June Bug (excess side curvature) would. Micro may,
allowing for a pinched in bow, but as Sam just indicated the AS
type can sit on its bottom without fixed keel.
The closest I can think of to an AS 14.5' would be Jim Michalak's
16' dayboat skiff "Dean's Box" (dispensation for side flare). If I
recollect correctly this hull is from his earlier "Pencilbox"
without the cuddy. The smaller similar "Cubit", the "Pencil Box",
and the original "Jukebox" (based directly on Bolger's AS19) were
withdrawn from sale by Jim when plans didn't sell. Phil told him
that was down to ugliness. Bolger reportedly was likewise not
impressed by the AS19 aesthetics when it was built.
I don't know if "ugliness" matters that much, other than to the
designer's reputation, when everything else about the boat you're
sailing is fabulous. I also don't know that a small pure form AS has
to be ugly.... the profile that Bruce just posted of a Micro
Navigator cabin pasted onto the AS19 looks sweet to me.
Graeme
sharpies referred partially to the fore and aft bottom being held
quite high out of the water in order to enhance manouverability,
especially reducing crankiness and getting stuck in stays, and to
lower wetted surface area. Mainly though, it referred to a design
solution arising from his "seas of peas" theory, that is: that
*chine curvature in plan and profile be equal*. This would have it
that as the hull moves forward water is shoved aside up front and
let flow back in aft with equal pressure exerted by bottom and side
because of their equal curvature. The equal pressure means that
water doesn't flow sideways one way or another across the chine thus
minimising turbulence and drag from chine eddies. On the drawings
the end elevation fore-and-aft views show the angles with the chine
line, made by the sides verticle station lines and the corresponding
bottom horizontal lines, as equal. Jim Michalak has written about
this, here and there.
Other considerations (looks? excessively square cut off bow or very
long overhanging bow?) seem to cause PCB to sometimes fudge this
design principle more or less. The 19' 6" minimum proa, 23' 6"
sharpie catamaran concept, and Pirogue 12, noteably all with
relatively narrow hulls, seem to be in the pure form. Of those AS
types with relatively wider hulls only AS19 seems to be in the pure
form. The others seem to mostly deviate in the bow area with the
chine curvature in plan being pinched in toward a more or less
pointy bow. This ought to generate drag, per the theory.
With a dipensation made for side flare, an earlier larger design,
#267 Blackgauntlet ll (33' 6"x 5' 8''bottom) , would accord with the
advanced sharpie "seas of peas" theory, as would #231 Otter l (19'
6"x 3' 8"bottom ); however I don't think any "Instant Boats"
including June Bug (excess side curvature) would. Micro may,
allowing for a pinched in bow, but as Sam just indicated the AS
type can sit on its bottom without fixed keel.
The closest I can think of to an AS 14.5' would be Jim Michalak's
16' dayboat skiff "Dean's Box" (dispensation for side flare). If I
recollect correctly this hull is from his earlier "Pencilbox"
without the cuddy. The smaller similar "Cubit", the "Pencil Box",
and the original "Jukebox" (based directly on Bolger's AS19) were
withdrawn from sale by Jim when plans didn't sell. Phil told him
that was down to ugliness. Bolger reportedly was likewise not
impressed by the AS19 aesthetics when it was built.
I don't know if "ugliness" matters that much, other than to the
designer's reputation, when everything else about the boat you're
sailing is fabulous. I also don't know that a small pure form AS has
to be ugly.... the profile that Bruce just posted of a Micro
Navigator cabin pasted onto the AS19 looks sweet to me.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, craig o'donnell <dadadata@f...> wrote:
> > How come it isn't? We have advanced sharpies all the way from
Loose
> > Moose down to Peero, but nothing in the 14 to 16 foot range.
Have I
> > missed a design somewhere? Is there something about this hull
form that
> > makes it undesireable for boats of this size? If one were to
freely
> > extrapolate, downsizing an AS 19 to 15 feet, what might be the
beam,
> > depth, ballast, sail area etc. for such a boat?
> >
> > Sam Betty
>
> June Bug.
>
>http://www.chebacco.com/chebacco_news/ch132.jpg
> --
> Craig O'Donnell
> Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
> <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
> The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
> The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
> Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese
Junks,
> American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
> Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
> _________________________________
>
> -- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
> -- Macintosh kinda guy
> Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
> _________________________________
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> How come it isn't? We have advanced sharpies all the way from LooseJune Bug.
> Moose down to Peero, but nothing in the 14 to 16 foot range. Have I
> missed a design somewhere? Is there something about this hull form that
> makes it undesireable for boats of this size? If one were to freely
> extrapolate, downsizing an AS 19 to 15 feet, what might be the beam,
> depth, ballast, sail area etc. for such a boat?
>
> Sam Betty
http://www.chebacco.com/chebacco_news/ch132.jpg
--
Craig O'Donnell
Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
<http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
_________________________________
-- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
-- Macintosh kinda guy
Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
_________________________________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Maybe June Bug should be renamed AS14?
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bill
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Maybe take a look at Chesapeake Marine Design, Catbird 16 or "The
Sharpie Book" by Reuel Parker, or Chapelle's Amer Sm Sailing Craft.
Much as I admire PCB, he did not invent the sharpie. I particularily
like the Catbird 16 but have more boats than one should. Clyde
sam1boat wrote:
Sharpie Book" by Reuel Parker, or Chapelle's Amer Sm Sailing Craft.
Much as I admire PCB, he did not invent the sharpie. I particularily
like the Catbird 16 but have more boats than one should. Clyde
sam1boat wrote:
> How come it isn't? We have advanced sharpies all the way from Loose[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Moose down to Peero, but nothing in the 14 to 16 foot range. Have I
> missed a design somewhere? Is there something about this hull form that
> makes it undesireable for boats of this size? If one were to freely
> extrapolate, downsizing an AS 19 to 15 feet, what might be the beam,
> depth, ballast, sail area etc. for such a boat?
>
> Sam Betty
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Boating magazine
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Boating+magazine&w1=Boating+magazine&w2=Alaska+outdoors&w3=Boating+safety&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=F6_uQijqw2ScmVAPehRO4A>
> Alaska outdoors
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Alaska+outdoors&w1=Boating+magazine&w2=Alaska+outdoors&w3=Boating+safety&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=plfUV3CmlKk-hgZREfzBBQ>
> Boating safety
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Boating+safety&w1=Boating+magazine&w2=Alaska+outdoors&w3=Boating+safety&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=r8ql9_kKXb4ghiPn48fOvA>
>
> Great outdoors
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Great+outdoors&w1=Boating+magazine&w2=Alaska+outdoors&w3=Boating+safety&w4=Great+outdoors&c=4&s=83&.sig=9l9RE2t51CbVVIxFXYgE4A>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "bolger
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Could be, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. The AS group doesn'tTrue, the 14'6" Cynthia J also comes close, no fin keel, but then
> have a fixed keel.
no square bow either.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
have a fixed keel.
> On 8/4/05, sam1boat <sam1boat@y...> wrote:Could be, but I think that's a bit of a stretch. The AS group doesn't
> > How come it isn't? We have advanced sharpies all the way from Loose
> > Moose down to Peero, but nothing in the 14 to 16 foot range.
> > Sam Betty
>
> The Micro could also be called AS-15.5
have a fixed keel.
On 8/4/05, sam1boat <sam1boat@...> wrote:
> How come it isn't? We have advanced sharpies all the way from LooseThe Micro could also be called AS-15.5
> Moose down to Peero, but nothing in the 14 to 16 foot range.
> Sam Betty
How come it isn't? We have advanced sharpies all the way from Loose
Moose down to Peero, but nothing in the 14 to 16 foot range. Have I
missed a design somewhere? Is there something about this hull form that
makes it undesireable for boats of this size? If one were to freely
extrapolate, downsizing an AS 19 to 15 feet, what might be the beam,
depth, ballast, sail area etc. for such a boat?
Sam Betty
Moose down to Peero, but nothing in the 14 to 16 foot range. Have I
missed a design somewhere? Is there something about this hull form that
makes it undesireable for boats of this size? If one were to freely
extrapolate, downsizing an AS 19 to 15 feet, what might be the beam,
depth, ballast, sail area etc. for such a boat?
Sam Betty