Re: box keels? or what?.

In the BWAOM chapter on Clam Skiff, PCB says "The big solid shoe is
derivered from the cutwater experiments I've discussed ... [in the
chapters on Hawkeye and Microtrawler]". When describing Hawkeye, he
says "... much of her weight is carried by the slim keel box."

I don't think it matters much what it's called, and it's not easy to
say where Bolger came up with the configuration seen in the two
boats mentioned above. But it's certainly useful to think of these
designs as having sponsons that provide sufficient stability and
deck area, married to a hull that retains most of the virtues of a
simple narrow planing sharpie.

But you have to admit the bow of Miniature Steel Tug (non-planing)
is very similar to that of, say, Fast Motorsailer (planing), even if
yo say that the first one has a box keel and the second a narrow
sharpie hull with sponsons.

Howard

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Chamberland" <cha62759@t...>
wrote:
> I've long since been separated from my Bolger books however if I
> recall correctly in the discussion of Hawkeye, Microtrawler and Bee
> the center hull is not referred to as a box "keel" but as a sharpy
> hull; the wider upper hull really functioning as sponsons. With
power
> the sharpy hull approaches a full plane. So it's is a case of
> comparing apples and oranges. There is not a box keel on the
Hawkeye,
> MT or Bee. If I recall properly a box keel would occur on a
> displacement hull and I have no idea about it's theoetical function
> but I'm pretty sure that it is not the same as the Bolger trio.
I've long since been separated from my Bolger books however if I
recall correctly in the discussion of Hawkeye, Microtrawler and Bee
the center hull is not referred to as a box "keel" but as a sharpy
hull; the wider upper hull really functioning as sponsons. With power
the sharpy hull approaches a full plane. So it's is a case of
comparing apples and oranges. There is not a box keel on the Hawkeye,
MT or Bee. If I recall properly a box keel would occur on a
displacement hull and I have no idea about it's theoetical function
but I'm pretty sure that it is not the same as the Bolger trio.
Bob Chamberland

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bryant Owen" <mariner@n...> wrote:
> Re Box keels. I'e a copy of The Times-Life "The Classic Boat" edited
> by Chappelle. I've the luxury of being able to see both a sail
> designed Seabright Skiff and the motorized version on two facing
> pages. It would appear that the "box" on the sail version evolved to
> make a lapstrake design suitable for beaching by twisting the garboard
> planks to a horizontal on the run creating a flat bottom aft that then
> converged at the stern to mid centre just before the rudder. The
> itger benefit was to create an easily accessible bilge for bailing -
> no doubt a blessing going through the surf. The motorized version
> shows the further evolution which is more of a beefing up of the
> original "box", adding deadwood for the prop shaft, the "box" coming
> to an end allowing a cutaway for the propellor. A galvanized keel
> strap extends to the foot of the rudder thus offering protection for
> the prop and allowing the boat to be beached as beforee. The article
> documents the motorized version as from the the 1920s but no dates for
> the sprit/flying jib sail version but I'd presume it'd go back to at
> least the 1890s. We could argue that box keels have been around a long
> time.
>
> PS - I'd love to build both. Great lines!
>
> Bryant
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Clyde Wisner <clydewis@c...> wrote:
> > I built a wineglass wherry from a Pygmy kit which also has a hollow
> skeg
> > or box keel if you will. It is the easiest rowing boat I've
> > encountered, but when I added a sail and centerboard, the hollow skeg
> > left no comfortable place to sit in the bottom. The bottom plank runs
> > well up toward the bow and has about an inch and a half of rocker in
> > it. Clyde
> >
> >
> >
> > Howard Stephenson wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, now that you've described it, I think that's how the Seabright
> > > box keels are done; also, there is some flare to the sides of their
> > > box keels (as there is in some Bolger designs).
> > >
Re Box keels. I'e a copy of The Times-Life "The Classic Boat" edited
by Chappelle. I've the luxury of being able to see both a sail
designed Seabright Skiff and the motorized version on two facing
pages. It would appear that the "box" on the sail version evolved to
make a lapstrake design suitable for beaching by twisting the garboard
planks to a horizontal on the run creating a flat bottom aft that then
converged at the stern to mid centre just before the rudder. The
itger benefit was to create an easily accessible bilge for bailing -
no doubt a blessing going through the surf. The motorized version
shows the further evolution which is more of a beefing up of the
original "box", adding deadwood for the prop shaft, the "box" coming
to an end allowing a cutaway for the propellor. A galvanized keel
strap extends to the foot of the rudder thus offering protection for
the prop and allowing the boat to be beached as beforee. The article
documents the motorized version as from the the 1920s but no dates for
the sprit/flying jib sail version but I'd presume it'd go back to at
least the 1890s. We could argue that box keels have been around a long
time.

PS - I'd love to build both. Great lines!

Bryant

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Clyde Wisner <clydewis@c...> wrote:
> I built a wineglass wherry from a Pygmy kit which also has a hollow
skeg
> or box keel if you will. It is the easiest rowing boat I've
> encountered, but when I added a sail and centerboard, the hollow skeg
> left no comfortable place to sit in the bottom. The bottom plank runs
> well up toward the bow and has about an inch and a half of rocker in
> it. Clyde
>
>
>
> Howard Stephenson wrote:
>
> > Yes, now that you've described it, I think that's how the Seabright
> > box keels are done; also, there is some flare to the sides of their
> > box keels (as there is in some Bolger designs).
> >
> Bruce, if that forward warp well is like the one on

Here is a snapshot of the anchor well before and after

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/44362731/in/pool-bolgerboats/

Sure looks like I can just stand on the forward deck and
drop the anchor warp right into the well.

> it. Did PB say anything about any changes to reduce
> squating at high speed,

I didn't ask him. I have a hard time imagining that squatting
is a problem with that hull shape. Isn't the first fix to try;
making a change to the tilt of the motor?

> planes on a Calkins' Bartender?

That boat sure has similar lines to a Topaz.
I built a wineglass wherry from a Pygmy kit which also has a hollow skeg
or box keel if you will. It is the easiest rowing boat I've
encountered, but when I added a sail and centerboard, the hollow skeg
left no comfortable place to sit in the bottom. The bottom plank runs
well up toward the bow and has about an inch and a half of rocker in
it. Clyde



Howard Stephenson wrote:

> Yes, now that you've described it, I think that's how the Seabright
> box keels are done; also, there is some flare to the sides of their
> box keels (as there is in some Bolger designs).
>
Bruce, if that forward warp well is like the one on
the cabin Topaz, it is interesting that it is
redrawn--I coverd my opening into this well over, as I
could never figure an easy way to feed the line into
it. Did PB say anything about any changes to reduce
squating at high speed, along the lines of the squat
planes on a Calkins' Bartender? I am really anxious
to see how the Spyder turns out, it ought to really be
an elegent looking craft. Sam

--- Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:

> In the last week of August I sent a letter to Phil
> Bolger asking a few
> questions about the Topaz Sypder design and, to my
> surprise, he
> responded by sending me a Priority Mail tube with
> two (of the six)
> pages of the design redrawn and reissued, along with
> a re-written
> building key and commentary.
>
> In my letter I had asked about a few notes on the
> drawings which were
> missing from the building key, plus a couple other
> questions...motor
> sizing [90hp max], and PCB's opinion about the use
> of MDO plywood
> without fiberglass sheathing [he opposes], and the
> issue of how to
> safeguard the hull from flooding while at a mooring
> from filling with
> rain. [he added lots of foam and revised the bilge
> pump details].
>
> The re-design also included revision to the forward
> bulkhead so that
> the smallish 'warp well' could be enlarged to hold a
> largish anchor.
> The biggest change was the addition of a substantial
> amount of foam
> buoyancy, plus the raising of the seats by 3". The
> boat now can flood
> entirely without flooding the powerhead of the
> outboard motor.
>
> Here is the text of Bolger's (typewritten) letter to
> me:
> ===
> September 13, 2005
>
> Dear Bruce,
>
> I apologize, first, for being so slow getting back
> to you. Making a
> proper response to yours of a couple of weeks ago
> took much longer
> than we had expected. Second, the key you were sent
> was an earlier
> version that, as you soon found, did not contain all
> the material you
> needed.
>
> Having located the correct key, we went through it
> with care (!) and
> found several things in that one that needed some
> work, some suggested
> by your questions and some afterthoughts, and that
> called for some
> modifications to the drawings.
>
> The revised (and correct printout) key will answer
> your questions.
> The transom seats are structural, and we think
> overall that fiberglass
> sheathing is important. The helm is supposed to be
> your choice from
> whatever look good to you, as you will pick radio
> and other equipment.
> We have, speaking of equipment, enlarged the anchor
> well in the bow
> to take a c.30-lb. Danforth type anchor, and
> suggested the small toe
> rails to make the foredeck more negotiable.
>
> We'd suggest that you get rid of the previous key
> material, and the
> previous Spyder drawing and expansion sheet (Sheet
> 3) as those sheets
> have changes (not much on the expansion sheet, just
> to locate the
> altered forward bulkhead), to avoid possible
> confusion.
>
> We hope this embarrassing glitch has not put you off
> building the
> boat, as we like the design a lot and look forward
> to your rendering
> of it. Please keep in touch.
>
> Sincerely,
> /s/ Phil
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
In the last week of August I sent a letter to Phil Bolger asking a few
questions about the Topaz Sypder design and, to my surprise, he
responded by sending me a Priority Mail tube with two (of the six)
pages of the design redrawn and reissued, along with a re-written
building key and commentary.

In my letter I had asked about a few notes on the drawings which were
missing from the building key, plus a couple other questions...motor
sizing [90hp max], and PCB's opinion about the use of MDO plywood
without fiberglass sheathing [he opposes], and the issue of how to
safeguard the hull from flooding while at a mooring from filling with
rain. [he added lots of foam and revised the bilge pump details].

The re-design also included revision to the forward bulkhead so that
the smallish 'warp well' could be enlarged to hold a largish anchor.
The biggest change was the addition of a substantial amount of foam
buoyancy, plus the raising of the seats by 3". The boat now can flood
entirely without flooding the powerhead of the outboard motor.

Here is the text of Bolger's (typewritten) letter to me:
===
September 13, 2005

Dear Bruce,

I apologize, first, for being so slow getting back to you. Making a
proper response to yours of a couple of weeks ago took much longer
than we had expected. Second, the key you were sent was an earlier
version that, as you soon found, did not contain all the material you
needed.

Having located the correct key, we went through it with care (!) and
found several things in that one that needed some work, some suggested
by your questions and some afterthoughts, and that called for some
modifications to the drawings.

The revised (and correct printout) key will answer your questions.
The transom seats are structural, and we think overall that fiberglass
sheathing is important. The helm is supposed to be your choice from
whatever look good to you, as you will pick radio and other equipment.
We have, speaking of equipment, enlarged the anchor well in the bow
to take a c.30-lb. Danforth type anchor, and suggested the small toe
rails to make the foredeck more negotiable.

We'd suggest that you get rid of the previous key material, and the
previous Spyder drawing and expansion sheet (Sheet 3) as those sheets
have changes (not much on the expansion sheet, just to locate the
altered forward bulkhead), to avoid possible confusion.

We hope this embarrassing glitch has not put you off building the
boat, as we like the design a lot and look forward to your rendering
of it. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,
/s/ Phil
Yes, now that you've described it, I think that's how the Seabright
box keels are done; also, there is some flare to the sides of their
box keels (as there is in some Bolger designs).

Bolger wants to carry the box forward to the bow as a way of
softening wave action (reducing pounding if you like) on what would
otherwise be a broad flat area, and to produce a pattern of water
flow that promotes straight (rather than "squirrely") tracking. A
third reason is probably to provide enough static and reserve
buoyancy. A fouth reason, at least at displacement speeds, would be
to put displacement in the ends to increase prismatic coefficient,
thereby reducing wavemaking resistance.

Seabrights have a conventional veed bow, which is another way of
doing much of the above.

Fast Brick is a Bolger design that has the box in the forward part
of the hull but not aft of about 1/3 of the waterline length from
the bow.

My limited knowledge of Seabright skiffs comes from reading an
article in WoodenBoat a decade or so ago. If anyone's interested
they could probably find the article with the aid of the magazine's
online subject index and a good library.

Howard

Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "ch_bunch" <ch_bunch@y...> wrote:

> I've seen plans of seabrights with engines in the box -- so the
> shaft goes straight out the back. I think the difference between
> the seabright box is that it's just the back half. More like a
box
> skeg that disappears into the front of the hull. Bolger's box
keels
> are usually pronounced (still sticking out of the bottom of the
> hull) in the front half of the hull. I wonder what the advantages
> are for each. Anybody have any thoughts?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> Yes, I think so. Bolger's innovation, I think, was to make the box
> keel much larger, so that even an engine or a cabin sole could fit
> inside it and also to bring it forward to form the distinctive bow
> that is meant to permit greater beam than would otherwise be
prudent
> in a sharpie.
>
> Even the narrow Seabright-type box keel makes a lot of sense
because
> it's going to be stronger than a simple skeg and it's easier to
> arrange for the propellor shaft (no deadwood to bore through).
>
> Howard
>

I've seen plans of seabrights with engines in the box -- so the
shaft goes straight out the back. I think the difference between
the seabright box is that it's just the back half. More like a box
skeg that disappears into the front of the hull. Bolger's box keels
are usually pronounced (still sticking out of the bottom of the
hull) in the front half of the hull. I wonder what the advantages
are for each. Anybody have any thoughts?

carl
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson"
<stephensonhw@a...> wrote:
> Yes, I think so. Bolger's innovation, I think, was to make the box
> keel much larger, so that even an engine or a cabin sole could fit
> inside it and also to bring it forward to form the distinctive bow
> that is meant to permit greater beam than would otherwise be
prudent
> in a sharpie.
>
> Even the narrow Seabright-type box keel makes a lot of sense
because
> it's going to be stronger than a simple skeg and it's easier to
> arrange for the propellor shaft (no deadwood to bore through).
>
> Howard
>

I've seen plans of seabrights with engines in the box -- so the
shaft goes straight out the back. I think the difference between
the seabright box is that it's just the back half. More like a box
skeg that disappears into the front of the hull. Bolger's box keels
are usually pronounced (still sticking out of the bottom of the
hull) in the front half of the hull. I wonder what the advantages
are for each. Anybody have any thoughts?

carl
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "ronschwiesow" <nanron62@m...> wrote:
> Don, Can you say more about your Bonefish project or give a link?
I'm
> trying a Tennessee-like design that I hope will do displacement
speed
> on 6.6 hp inboard.
>
> Ron

http://hallman.org/bolger/bonefish.gif

Bonefish is only a Bolger sketch. When I wrote PB&F about the
design, their response was to suggest Hawkeye. Reviewing the
Bonefish sketch with the Hawkeye study pack in front of me, I
realized I could get Hawkeye plans and use them as a guide while
building Bonefish. Many similarities in the basic hull design.

One could also say I'm building a Hawkeye shaped like a Bonefish.
I've purchased Hawkeye plans from PB&F.

I like the simple cheap power scheme, and already have aquired an
18hp Briggs & Stratton to power it for only $400. The open deck
scheme is good for fishing/camping/river cruising.

I hope to start cutting out parts next spring. I expect to do more
cutting, fitting, and assembling, vs prefabricating as one could do
from a good set of plans.

I would think a 6.6 on a plans built Tennesee would get around fine
in protected waters. IMO you would need to avoid over building the
hull and/or adding alot of superstructure weight/windage.

Don
jhkohnen@...wrote:
> I don't think it's the box keel these folks are claiming as their own, it's
> the odd curves in the separate parts of the hull and how they intersect. PCB
> didn't dream up the box keel either, he just thoguht up some new ways to
> implement it.
>

I'm even dubious the curve bit is original - some Engineering students
at the the uni I went to (Tasmania) designed hulls like that to reduce
wakes at a specific speed range so that tour boats could move around in
national parks without damaging the banks. The effect is the same (if
you don't make the wake because you have waves cancelling out), you
reduce wave drag too.

Chris
Isn't that odd curve produced by the way the wariable-deadrise vee-
bottom (as per my earlier post) meets the top of the box keel? In
other words, if the deadrise were uniform (or non-existent), the curve
would not have that funny kink in it. That's how it seems to me but
it's not easy to tell without seeing a complete set of lines.

So if I'm correct, the difference between this one and Bolger's box-
keel is just that they use variable deadrise, whereas Bolger uses
uniform (or no) deadrise, very likely to make for easier construction
in plywood, because the shape is a section of a cylinder.

Howard

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, jhkohnen@b... wrote:
> I don't think it's the box keel these folks are claiming as their
own, it's
> the odd curves in the separate parts of the hull and how they
intersect. PCB
> didn't dream up the box keel either, he just thoguht up some new
ways to
> implement it.
I don't think it's the box keel these folks are claiming as their own, it's
the odd curves in the separate parts of the hull and how they intersect. PCB
didn't dream up the box keel either, he just thoguht up some new ways to
implement it.

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 05:40:45 -0000, Howard wrote:
> No, but these people seem to be claiming it as theirs.
> ...

--
John <jkohnen@...>
http://www.boat-links.com/
Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes.
<Henry David Thoreau>
> Makes me confident about my Bonefish project being a good performer
on
> an 18hp engine.

Don, Can you say more about your Bonefish project or give a link? I'm
trying a Tennessee-like design that I hope will do displacement speed
on 6.6 hp inboard.

Ron
What's happening seems to be variable deadrise, gradually becoming
shallower towards the stern. Bolger's box-keel boats either have no
deadrise (Microtrawler) or a constant vee (Fast Motorsailer).

Howard

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donschultz8275" <donschultz@i...>
wrote:

> They do have some unique stuff going on with the upper hull chine.
> They also seem to indicate it will be a motor/sailer which is VERY
> Bolger.
>
> Makes me confident about my Bonefish project being a good performer
on
> an 18hp engine.
Yes, I think so. Bolger's innovation, I think, was to make the box
keel much larger, so that even an engine or a cabin sole could fit
inside it and also to bring it forward to form the distinctive bow
that is meant to permit greater beam than would otherwise be prudent
in a sharpie.

Even the narrow Seabright-type box keel makes a lot of sense because
it's going to be stronger than a simple skeg and it's easier to
arrange for the propellor shaft (no deadwood to bore through).

Howard

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "BARBARA SPOERING" <b.spoering@w...>
wrote:
> Say, doesn't the Seabright Skiff which I believe goes back to the
time of early inboard gas engines have a similar type of box keel ???
On Sep 15, 2005, at 11:40 PM, Howard Stephenson wrote:

> No, but these people seem to be claiming it as theirs.

I'm not sure they are claiming the box keel as theirs.

But they do seem proud of the shape of the rest of the
bottom in relation to the box keel. Something like the
wasp waisted jet planes we used to see.

Perhaps they are claiming the whole bottom as their idea.

Is that a significant distinction? I don't know.

hal
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@a...>
wrote:
> ... look familiar?

They do have some unique stuff going on with the upper hull chine.
They also seem to indicate it will be a motor/sailer which is VERY
Bolger.

Makes me confident about my Bonefish project being a good performer on
an 18hp engine.
Say, doesn't the Seabright Skiff which I believe goes back to the time of early inboard gas engines have a similar type of box keel ???

Jack Spoering - Ft Lauderdale
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Hallman
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Does this ...


> See also the claims made for this "unique new concept" at:
> Howard

I don't recall that Bolger claims the idea is his, probably
other people have designed boats with a box keel too.


Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "bolger" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
No, but these people seem to be claiming it as theirs. John Teale's
1976 "Designing Small Craft" shows his plans for a 24' canal cruiser
using a box keel, mainly to provide sufficient headroom without
having too much "air draft" or too much displacement. He points out
that the idea was not new even then. Oddly, Teale says this idea
would not work for an open-water boat because of the difficulty of
building it in wood to be strong enough. This was written before
epoxy resins were commonly used, but he seems not to have grasped
the idea that the girder-like shape of the box keel adds a great
deal of strength and rigidity.

In the late 60s or early 70s an Australian designer by the name of
Len Hedges used to sell his plans for a small open-water plywood
planing outboard fishing boat that married a a substantial box keel
to a veed bottom.

Howard

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> I don't recall that Bolger claims the idea is his, probably
> other people have designed boats with a box keel too.
> See also the claims made for this "unique new concept" at:
> Howard

I don't recall that Bolger claims the idea is his, probably
other people have designed boats with a box keel too.
Well, you know what they say: If you're gonna steal, steal from the
best. Or perhaps it's a case of the lightning of genius striking two
independent locations.

Cheers,
David Graybeal
Portland, OR.

"Ability may take you to the top, but it takes character to stay
there" - John Wooden

**************************

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Howard Stephenson" <stephensonhw@a...>
wrote:
> ... look familiar?
>
>http://members.aon.at/pinical/SUBSITES/DG-EN-01.html
>
> See also the claims made for this "unique new concept" at:
>
>http://members.aon.at/pinical/SUBSITES/DG-EN-DET03.html
>
> Howard
... look familiar?

http://members.aon.at/pinical/SUBSITES/DG-EN-01.html

See also the claims made for this "unique new concept" at:

http://members.aon.at/pinical/SUBSITES/DG-EN-DET03.html

Howard