Re: [bolger] Labeling the dories

On problem is that in a chop, the nice "Bolgerist" flow lines generated by
the rocker and plan shapes matching is screwed up. So, as your boat pitches
in waves, and as waves move up and down at the bow, a great amount of
turbulance is generated at the chine. Effectively slowing the boat down when
the water is choppy. To such a great extent that you even have probems
getting through irons in rough water.

However, when the water is rough, the wind is usualy blowing pretty good, so
you don't really have problems getting anywhere, you just have to get the
hang of tacking, and realize that you won't be as fast as some of the
fancier hull shapes...

I've taken Entropy out in pretty rough water, if you remember to keep the
boat heeled 10-15 degrees to reduce pounding, and take care in tacking
(mizzen/jib might help here), it handles the waves pretty good.
----- Original Message -----
From: <wmrpage@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2000 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Labeling the dories


> In a message dated 5/27/00 12:38:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
>welshman@...writes:
>
> << I have more comments but will stop here unless somebody wants to here
> more. >>
> Please tell us more! One can learn a great deal about the construction of
> geometrically simple boats on this group, but testimony as to performance
is
> less prevalent. I suppose the explanation is simple enough - once the
> constructors are boating they, for the most part, are too busy having fun
to
> bother writing about it. Still I doubt if I'm the only member who would
> appreciate stories about the performance/non-performance of these types of
> pointed boxes in actual use. I'm intrigued by your possible preference for
> Gerr's design with less flare than the Glen-L design. One could read into
> Bolger's writing an implication that flare is an unnecessary affectation
in
> many cases. (not that he hasn't designed boats with flare as well as
"flair")
> Does your experience in what must be, from my perspective, very rough
waters
> inform this preference on your part?
>
> Bill in MN
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> BeMANY, where eGroups members SAVE on long distance.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/4121/10/_/3457/_/959470133/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> This is good stuff! Please tell us what the frame sizes are, their spacing
> and the lengths of frame between the chines. What about longitudinal
> members? How thick is the bottom? Side panels? Can you provide more
> dimensions of the boat?
>
> Roger.

The boat started as a standard Glen-L Marine Hunky Dory (Glen-L.com see the work
boat section of their boat design page). When I built her they didn't have the Big
Hunk and Little Hunk designs. If they had I would have built the Big Hunk. The
bottom is 1/2" the sides 3/8". I added 2 frames and spaced all the others at 19"
instead of the called for 18" to streach it out to 26'. I should kept the 18"
spacing for the bend into the bow as the 19" one ruined the exact alignment for the
breast hook and stem. Violence and brut force got it together. The frames were 2x4
(1 1/2 by 3 1/2 )clear fir which was planned down to the called for 1 1/14
thickness. I have to laugh at that now, the effort I put in to keep it to the called
for dimensions. The cabins were my own design. Chuck Leinweber has asked me to do
an article for Duckworks mag and I will include pictures of the various
configurations. The cabins were all dimensioned by eye for looks and we then lived
with the results. This is not the Bolger approach of course where function comes
before form.

A last comment. This is a very easy method of construction. I could build a hull in
4 weekends with one of my boys helping, along with a few weekday evenings.

HJ
_ _ _ _ _
% Harrywelshman@...
Harry:

You have really got the attention of at least one reader! Airborne boats,
and broken ribs - most of us will never ever see that kind of boating. My
hat is off to you.

What happened to the two sheets of AC ply that you used? Also, I think you
are talking about Renn Tolman:
http://www.xyz.net/~mgrt/. Was it the Vee bottom of this type of boat and
its lack of stability that you didn't like. Doesn't that same bottom make
for a smoother ride in rough water. Perhaps in those conditions, work comes
first, and comfort second.

Thanks again for a great story.

Chuck

> > Still I doubt if I'm the only member who would
> > appreciate stories about the performance/non-performance of these types
of
> > pointed boxes in actual use. I'm intrigued by your possible preference
for
> > Gerr's design with less flare than the Glen-L design. One could read
into
> > Bolger's writing an implication that flare is an unnecessary affectation
in
> > many cases. (not that he hasn't designed boats with flare as well as
"flair")
> > Does your experience in what must be, from my perspective, very rough
waters
> > inform this preference on your part?
> >
> > Bill in MN
>
> I moved from western AK after twenty years in and around Nome, to Juneau a
very
> different type of boating. My interest in the Gerr design is because it
would
> make a better cruiser. If I were to go back to Nome or set net fishing any
where
> that they do it in Western AK I would take the Hunky Dory ( a terrible
name) as
> first choice. I have looked at Renee Toulen's (spelling suspect) Skiff
for All
> Seasons, but I have picked net with similar designs belonging to friends
and none
> felt so good on the net. Even though the Lady (the dory's name) was 4 to 6
feet
> longer than other skiffs she always felt very light and easy not carried
back and
> forth by wave action on the net. The frame and plywood construction is
quicker
> and easier than stitch and glue also.
>
> I made some mistakes in building. I did not put the spray rail on about
halfway
> between chine and sheer. This kind of rail will really knock down spray
coming up
> the flared side In a cross wind one day that was around 25kts I had so
much spray
> coming up and getting blown back in to the boat that both bilge pumps were
having
> a hard time keeping ahead. I had expanded the size a lot and I should
have upped
> the frame size, at least in the forward section. I broke one frame and the
> current owner broke two more going out of the Nome harbor with surf
breaking in
> the mouth. He said he had the boat completely airborne a couple of times
but she
> handled extremely well and he never doubted her ability to get out (and
back)
> safely. This is her 17th summer.
>
> Last but not least, never use 3/8 in AC plywood. I think Payson has a
description
> of this wood "it has a core that would shame a used car salesman". If
that is a
> misquote than my apologies but I will stand by the opinion. I used it on
the aft
> 8' on each side and I will not do that again.
>
> HJ
>
>
> --
>
> _ _ _ _ _
> % Harrywelshman@...
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Accurate impartial advice on everything from laptops to table saws.
>http://click.egroups.com/1/4634/10/_/3457/_/959588756/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>The boat started as a standard Glen-L Marine Hunky Dory (Glen-L.com see the
work
>boat section of their boat design page). When I built her they didn't have
the Big
>Hunk and Little Hunk designs. If they had I would have built the Big Hunk. The
>bottom is 1/2" the sides 3/8". I added 2 frames and spaced all the others
at 19"
>instead of the called for 18" to streach it out to 26'. I should kept the 18"
>spacing for the bend into the bow as the 19" one ruined the exact alignment
for the
>breast hook and stem. Violence and brut force got it together. The frames
were 2x4
>(1 1/2 by 3 1/2 )clear fir which was planned down to the called for 1 1/14
>thickness. I have to laugh at that now, the effort I put in to keep it to
the called
>for dimensions. The cabins were my own design. Chuck Leinweber has asked
me to do
>an article for Duckworks mag and I will include pictures of the various
>configurations. The cabins were all dimensioned by eye for looks and we
then lived
>with the results. This is not the Bolger approach of course where function
comes
>before form.

I have looked at the Glen-L page to see the shape of these boats. I am
thinking of a 17 degree deadrise bottom 3 x 7mm (about 0.8") thick, 2 x 7mm
sides with 45 x 90mm (dressed 4 x 2) frames on 700mm (27.5") spacing, or
20mm on 350mm spacing, in a twin chine 7 metre (23') boat. This should be
more robust than the Glen-L design. It is nice to know what actually breaks
and then to be able to go a little stronger. Did you build the cabin
leaving room for a side deck or was it a raised sheer cabin? Have you got
any comment to make on the safety of raised sheer cabins? Any comments you
can make on safety in the operating conditions off the Alaskan coast would
be most useful.

Roger.
> Still I doubt if I'm the only member who would
> appreciate stories about the performance/non-performance of these types of
> pointed boxes in actual use. I'm intrigued by your possible preference for
> Gerr's design with less flare than the Glen-L design. One could read into
> Bolger's writing an implication that flare is an unnecessary affectation in
> many cases. (not that he hasn't designed boats with flare as well as "flair")
> Does your experience in what must be, from my perspective, very rough waters
> inform this preference on your part?
>
> Bill in MN

I moved from western AK after twenty years in and around Nome, to Juneau a very
different type of boating. My interest in the Gerr design is because it would
make a better cruiser. If I were to go back to Nome or set net fishing any where
that they do it in Western AK I would take the Hunky Dory ( a terrible name) as
first choice. I have looked at Renee Toulen's (spelling suspect) Skiff for All
Seasons, but I have picked net with similar designs belonging to friends and none
felt so good on the net. Even though the Lady (the dory's name) was 4 to 6 feet
longer than other skiffs she always felt very light and easy not carried back and
forth by wave action on the net. The frame and plywood construction is quicker
and easier than stitch and glue also.

I made some mistakes in building. I did not put the spray rail on about halfway
between chine and sheer. This kind of rail will really knock down spray coming up
the flared side In a cross wind one day that was around 25kts I had so much spray
coming up and getting blown back in to the boat that both bilge pumps were having
a hard time keeping ahead. I had expanded the size a lot and I should have upped
the frame size, at least in the forward section. I broke one frame and the
current owner broke two more going out of the Nome harbor with surf breaking in
the mouth. He said he had the boat completely airborne a couple of times but she
handled extremely well and he never doubted her ability to get out (and back)
safely. This is her 17th summer.

Last but not least, never use 3/8 in AC plywood. I think Payson has a description
of this wood "it has a core that would shame a used car salesman". If that is a
misquote than my apologies but I will stand by the opinion. I used it on the aft
8' on each side and I will not do that again.

HJ


--

_ _ _ _ _
% Harrywelshman@...
>I made some mistakes in building. I did not put the spray rail on about halfway
>between chine and sheer. This kind of rail will really knock down spray
coming up
>the flared side In a cross wind one day that was around 25kts I had so much
spray
>coming up and getting blown back in to the boat that both bilge pumps were
having
>a hard time keeping ahead. I had expanded the size a lot and I should have
upped
>the frame size, at least in the forward section. I broke one frame and the
>current owner broke two more going out of the Nome harbor with surf breaking in
>the mouth. He said he had the boat completely airborne a couple of times
but she
>handled extremely well and he never doubted her ability to get out (and back)
>safely. This is her 17th summer.
>
>Last but not least, never use 3/8 in AC plywood. I think Payson has a
description
>of this wood "it has a core that would shame a used car salesman". If that
is a
>misquote than my apologies but I will stand by the opinion. I used it on
the aft
>8' on each side and I will not do that again.

This is good stuff! Please tell us what the frame sizes are, their spacing
and the lengths of frame between the chines. What about longitudinal
members? How thick is the bottom? Side panels? Can you provide more
dimensions of the boat?

Roger.
In a message dated 5/27/00 12:38:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
welshman@...writes:

<< I have more comments but will stop here unless somebody wants to here
more. >>
Please tell us more! One can learn a great deal about the construction of
geometrically simple boats on this group, but testimony as to performance is
less prevalent. I suppose the explanation is simple enough - once the
constructors are boating they, for the most part, are too busy having fun to
bother writing about it. Still I doubt if I'm the only member who would
appreciate stories about the performance/non-performance of these types of
pointed boxes in actual use. I'm intrigued by your possible preference for
Gerr's design with less flare than the Glen-L design. One could read into
Bolger's writing an implication that flare is an unnecessary affectation in
many cases. (not that he hasn't designed boats with flare as well as "flair")
Does your experience in what must be, from my perspective, very rough waters
inform this preference on your part?

Bill in MN