Re: [bolger] Re: Delaware Trawler Outboard
No offense meant, John. I love the Bartenders myself.
I thought those wide rails gave some extra bearing
surface for planing purposes. The Topaz is a
narrower, lighter boat the the BT. My experience is
that to prevent cavitation in a steep chop, the lower
unit has to be a bit below what is otherwise optimal,
and with that configuration she has a tendancy to trim
nose-up under top-end power. I have never been lucky
enough to ride on a BT, with or without the rails.
Sure would love to, though. Sam
--- John Kohnen <jhkohnen@...> wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I thought those wide rails gave some extra bearing
surface for planing purposes. The Topaz is a
narrower, lighter boat the the BT. My experience is
that to prevent cavitation in a steep chop, the lower
unit has to be a bit below what is otherwise optimal,
and with that configuration she has a tendancy to trim
nose-up under top-end power. I have never been lucky
enough to ride on a BT, with or without the rails.
Sure would love to, though. Sam
--- John Kohnen <jhkohnen@...> wrote:
> I've got to pipe up and defend the Bartender since__________________________________________________
> the fellow selling
> George Calkins' plans now is a friend of mine. Those
> aren't "squat
> boards," an otherwise properly built Bartender will
> plane fine without
> them. The fin-like spray rail extensions provide
> stability when turning.
> Learn more about Bartenders here:
>
>http://www.bartenderboats.com/
>
> They're justifiably famous here in the Northwest.
>
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:58:40 -0800, Sam Glasscock
> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Clyde, I agree. If I wanted more planing speed in
> a
> > Topaz, I would ask PB about squat boards like a
> > Caulkins Bartender
> > ...
>
> --
> John <jkohnen@...>
> He got hold of the red meat of the language and
> turned it into hamburgers.
> <Richard Gordon on Ernest Hemingway>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming,
> respamming, 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
>
>
>bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I've got to pipe up and defend the Bartender since the fellow selling
George Calkins' plans now is a friend of mine. Those aren't "squat
boards," an otherwise properly built Bartender will plane fine without
them. The fin-like spray rail extensions provide stability when turning.
Learn more about Bartenders here:
http://www.bartenderboats.com/
They're justifiably famous here in the Northwest.
George Calkins' plans now is a friend of mine. Those aren't "squat
boards," an otherwise properly built Bartender will plane fine without
them. The fin-like spray rail extensions provide stability when turning.
Learn more about Bartenders here:
http://www.bartenderboats.com/
They're justifiably famous here in the Northwest.
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 11:58:40 -0800, Sam Glasscock wrote:
> ...
> Clyde, I agree. If I wanted more planing speed in a
> Topaz, I would ask PB about squat boards like a
> Caulkins Bartender
> ...
--
John <jkohnen@...>
He got hold of the red meat of the language and turned it into hamburgers.
<Richard Gordon on Ernest Hemingway>
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 08:00 -0800, Bruce Hallman wrote:
arrangement before and after the damage.
http://home.online.no/~bharbo/wdj/lb1.jpg
http://home.online.no/~bharbo/wdj/lb2.jpg
Bjorn
>Not quite. I have made two VERY simple drawings of the leeboard
> If I am not mistaken, the WDJ has a very similar leeboard detail to Fast
> Motorsailer and Fast Brick. Someone more skilled than I might find Bjorn
> Harbo's earlier email describing the damage, I recall, the damage was at the
> pivot pin connection point in the side panel of the hull, not actually damage
> to the leeboard.
arrangement before and after the damage.
http://home.online.no/~bharbo/wdj/lb1.jpg
http://home.online.no/~bharbo/wdj/lb2.jpg
Bjorn
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <peterlenihan@...>
wrote:
first page is NOT of Minnesota, but a re-design the builder and
commissioner of it thought superior. Then after it was finished
complained to Bolger about its tendency to yaw!
Bolger says the owner was annoyed when I congratulated him on his
nice boat, but pointed out that I did not have the plans so could
not comment on any problems it might have:-)
Is that perhaps one of the Duck Trap Boatworks variations?
Nels
wrote:
> hope this works....just scroll down to minnesota :-)I got the impression when reading this link that the drawing on the
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/
>
> peter lenihan
first page is NOT of Minnesota, but a re-design the builder and
commissioner of it thought superior. Then after it was finished
complained to Bolger about its tendency to yaw!
Bolger says the owner was annoyed when I congratulated him on his
nice boat, but pointed out that I did not have the plans so could
not comment on any problems it might have:-)
Is that perhaps one of the Duck Trap Boatworks variations?
Nels
>> Minnesota is considerably longer than Delaware Trawler and it looksThat's not a very nice comment from you, Don ...
>> much more like a sheltered water boat to me.
>
> The context of my comment about the Minnesota was building a similar
> cabin on a Topaz hull which is similar in length to Minnesota. The
> characteristics of Minnesota's hull are not important to the thread.
This thread is clearly about the Delaware Trawler (check the subject please), not about what you seem to want to talk about, which is putting a Minnesota cabin on a Topaz hull.
Seems like you need to keep your own posts on-topic a little better here, rather than making judgmental remarks about how other people's posts are "not important to the thread".
James Greene
> It may be worth noting that Bjorn Harbo's WDJ Schooner, "Esmeralda"If I am not mistaken, the WDJ has a very similar leeboard detail to Fast
> received some damage to a leeboard when it was in heavy weather.
>...
> exceptions I can recall are Fast Motorsailer, Fast Brick, and Martha
> Jane and some of these upgrades were also about the sailplan and
> include an upgrade to the leeboards as well.
Motorsailer and Fast Brick. Someone more skilled than I might find Bjorn
Harbo's earlier email describing the damage, I recall, the damage was at the
pivot pin connection point in the side panel of the hull, not actually damage
to the leeboard.
I was just re-reading Bolger's essay about leeboards in BWAOM/ScowSchooner
where he says that leeboards should be as fragile [thin] as you dare, because
light weight is worth the risk.
I seriously doubt that Bolger's attitude has changed much about leeboards,
and that attitude is, in short: that leeboards have pluses and minuses, and
that they have their uses, but are not suited for every boat.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donschultz8275" <donschultz@...> wrote:
received some damage to a leeboard when it was in heavy weather.
Is it may imagination or has PCB&F sort of gotten away from leeboards
in the latest designs? Witness Fiji, Colonel Hasler, Yonder, I60,
Camper, and that little beauty shown on the home page at Bolger3 - and
several others which have returned to various iterations of a
centerboard or in some cases the box keel.
Even many of his upgrades have only been of boats with centerboards
(BWII, AS 29, Le Cabatin) or fixed keels (Micro Navigator). The only
exceptions I can recall are Fast Motorsailer, Fast Brick, and Martha
Jane and some of these upgrades were also about the sailplan and
include an upgrade to the leeboards as well.
Are leeboards "dead in the water" as far as the PCB&F drawing board is
concerned I wonder?
It seems perhaps that Cartopper marks a signifcant re-thinking of the
centerboard's abilities where a smaller and less intrusive
centerboard, (or off-centerboard) combined with a larger rudder makes
for efficient sailing abilities. Whereas the leeboards restrict to
some degree the practical hull shape to match up with them.
Nels
>It may be worth noting that Bjorn Harbo's WDJ Schooner, "Esmeralda"
> Really lastly, making the Halifax a motorsailer seems redundant with
> Jochems Schooner and Fast Motor Sailer available as proven designs of
> which several have been built.
>
> Don
received some damage to a leeboard when it was in heavy weather.
Is it may imagination or has PCB&F sort of gotten away from leeboards
in the latest designs? Witness Fiji, Colonel Hasler, Yonder, I60,
Camper, and that little beauty shown on the home page at Bolger3 - and
several others which have returned to various iterations of a
centerboard or in some cases the box keel.
Even many of his upgrades have only been of boats with centerboards
(BWII, AS 29, Le Cabatin) or fixed keels (Micro Navigator). The only
exceptions I can recall are Fast Motorsailer, Fast Brick, and Martha
Jane and some of these upgrades were also about the sailplan and
include an upgrade to the leeboards as well.
Are leeboards "dead in the water" as far as the PCB&F drawing board is
concerned I wonder?
It seems perhaps that Cartopper marks a signifcant re-thinking of the
centerboard's abilities where a smaller and less intrusive
centerboard, (or off-centerboard) combined with a larger rudder makes
for efficient sailing abilities. Whereas the leeboards restrict to
some degree the practical hull shape to match up with them.
Nels
> Any idea which one will handle rough weather better?I agree w' Peter but would want to be driving Halifax/Delaware in the
>
>
> Having only Bolgers report about one Champlain handling some rough
> conditions on the lower St.Lawrence,with aplomb,to go by, I would
> hazard to guess that the best answer to your question is:"It depends
> on whose driving her."
>
> Good seamanship trumps good design most of the time.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter Lenihan
rough. The glass house and flatter bottom of Champlain are more
suited to protected waters. Seems to me the Jochems Schooner has
already proven seaworthiness of the the Halifax hull. A well handled
sail boat should be more comfortable in the rough than the same hull
on engine power alone.
Lastly, the Topaz hull with a more durable cabin design like that of
Halifax or Minnesota is will be faster on the same power.
Really lastly, making the Halifax a motorsailer seems redundant with
Jochems Schooner and Fast Motor Sailer available as proven designs of
which several have been built.
Don
The context of my comment about the Minnesota was building a similar
cabin on a Topaz hull which is similar in length to Minnesota. The
characteristics of Minnesota's hull are not important to the thread.
cabin on a Topaz hull which is similar in length to Minnesota. The
characteristics of Minnesota's hull are not important to the thread.
> >Minnesota is considerably longer than Delaware Trawler and it looksmuch more like a sheltered water boat to me.
> >
> >Kenneth Grome
> >Bagacay Boat Works
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Grome <xbb@...> wrote:
Drawings and even pictures can be decieving,Kenneth, the CHAMPLAIN is
a very striking vessel when seen in "the flesh" and ones eye is
forever dragged along some rather sweet sweeping lines.I know I
could've sat and gazed at MUDLARK(the boat featured in the picture
link you provided) all day long were it not for other matters
pressing. Bolger knows how to draw good lines and Van Pelt did a
really fine job of getting them just right :-)
However,one mans "short and top heavy" may be another mans "petite and
buxom". Either way,you had better love what ya see if you hope to
build her 'cause you'll be with her awhile :-)
Any idea which one will handle rough weather better?
Having only Bolgers report about one Champlain handling some rough
conditions on the lower St.Lawrence,with aplomb,to go by, I would
hazard to guess that the best answer to your question is:"It depends
on whose driving her."
Good seamanship trumps good design most of the time.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan, partially hypnotized from untold hours staring at
Windermeres' rubrail and cabin top for some awesomely sweet
lines..............
>> To me Champlain looks rather "short and top heavy" when comparedwith drawings of the Delaware Trawler,
Drawings and even pictures can be decieving,Kenneth, the CHAMPLAIN is
a very striking vessel when seen in "the flesh" and ones eye is
forever dragged along some rather sweet sweeping lines.I know I
could've sat and gazed at MUDLARK(the boat featured in the picture
link you provided) all day long were it not for other matters
pressing. Bolger knows how to draw good lines and Van Pelt did a
really fine job of getting them just right :-)
However,one mans "short and top heavy" may be another mans "petite and
buxom". Either way,you had better love what ya see if you hope to
build her 'cause you'll be with her awhile :-)
Any idea which one will handle rough weather better?
Having only Bolgers report about one Champlain handling some rough
conditions on the lower St.Lawrence,with aplomb,to go by, I would
hazard to guess that the best answer to your question is:"It depends
on whose driving her."
Good seamanship trumps good design most of the time.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan, partially hypnotized from untold hours staring at
Windermeres' rubrail and cabin top for some awesomely sweet
lines..............
On 2/26/06, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
thing, but proof that it gets cold here too.
The model is an imaginary rowboat shape that I dreamed up,
intended for plywood lapstrake, with curvy lines, exaggerated
whitehall shape, but extra wide beam for stability and capacity.
It is on my short list of about two hundred boats I intend
to build next.
> Green in the yard, how weird looking. Bruce, what is the model on theWell, there was ice on the windshield of my car last week, a rare,
> same photo page?
>
> HJ
thing, but proof that it gets cold here too.
The model is an imaginary rowboat shape that I dreamed up,
intended for plywood lapstrake, with curvy lines, exaggerated
whitehall shape, but extra wide beam for stability and capacity.
It is on my short list of about two hundred boats I intend
to build next.
Green in the yard, how weird looking. Bruce, what is the model on the
same photo page?
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
same photo page?
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>> weather. The advantage of the Topaz hull is the quiet, no wake ride even[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> at moderate speed,
>> Clyde
>>
>
> The last three feet of Topaz [everything aft of the motor mount]
> amounts to an ornamental motor shroud. It could be omitted, but the
> looks would suffer.
>
> In my opinion, a big part of the theory behind the Topaz hull is that
> the loading [people/gear] is centered above the middle of a flat
> bottomed hull. This allows, regardless of loading, the shallowest
> draft. This, in turn, allows the low powered / low wake nature of the
> hull. Also, a lot of the shape of Topaz is determined to take
> advantage of the sweeping curves possible with long plywood panels,
> with the benefit of quicker/cheaper construction. Big sweeping curves
> happen to look 'boatlike' and be 'boatlike' too. The twisted panel
> forefoot cutwater gives a sharp entry line.
>
> Three recent photos of my Topaz Spyder construction
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/104892504/
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/104892503/
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/104892502/
>
> weather. The advantage of the Topaz hull is the quiet, no wake ride evenThe last three feet of Topaz [everything aft of the motor mount]
> at moderate speed,
> Clyde
amounts to an ornamental motor shroud. It could be omitted, but the
looks would suffer.
In my opinion, a big part of the theory behind the Topaz hull is that
the loading [people/gear] is centered above the middle of a flat
bottomed hull. This allows, regardless of loading, the shallowest
draft. This, in turn, allows the low powered / low wake nature of the
hull. Also, a lot of the shape of Topaz is determined to take
advantage of the sweeping curves possible with long plywood panels,
with the benefit of quicker/cheaper construction. Big sweeping curves
happen to look 'boatlike' and be 'boatlike' too. The twisted panel
forefoot cutwater gives a sharp entry line.
Three recent photos of my Topaz Spyder construction
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/104892504/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/104892503/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/104892502/
The advantage of the Topaz hull is the
Topaz, I would ask PB about squat boards like a
Caulkins Bartender (or choose another boat), but I
wouldn't change the shape. She would loose her
moderate speed capabilities. Sam
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
> quiet, no wake ride evenClyde, I agree. If I wanted more planing speed in a
> at moderate speed, Maybe Sam can correct me, but to
> cut the stern off
> square is to do away with this advantage. I look at
> the quiet, no wake
> advantage as efficient use of power, at least that's
> my interpretation.
> Clyde
Topaz, I would ask PB about squat boards like a
Caulkins Bartender (or choose another boat), but I
wouldn't change the shape. She would loose her
moderate speed capabilities. Sam
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Clyde Wisner <clydewis@...> wrote:
inboard engine like Tahiti.
Anybody know what happened to the info on that design?
Tahiti #653 38'6'' Diesel Inboard Plans price $950.00 PB&F Ocean
Passagemaker - Ref: MAIB V#17No12-14
Nels
>the
> As of a month or so ago, PCB had not finished the Delaware concept,
> which he said would become "Halifax Explorer". Motor sailer is Wm
> Jochems as Delaware/Halifax uses that hull. With the rocker in that
> hull, we're probably not going to make 7knts but the extrapower of
> high thrust 25 should handle tides and currents or as acticlesays"pull
> disabled boats off the lee shore".Another option would be to consider Fast Motorsailor or a boat with an
inboard engine like Tahiti.
Anybody know what happened to the info on that design?
Tahiti #653 38'6'' Diesel Inboard Plans price $950.00 PB&F Ocean
Passagemaker - Ref: MAIB V#17No12-14
Nels
As of a month or so ago, PCB had not finished the Delaware concept,
which he said would become "Halifax Explorer". Motor sailer is Wm
Jochems as Delaware/Halifax uses that hull. With the rocker in that
hull, we're probably not going to make 7knts but the extrapower of the
high thrust 25 should handle tides and currents or as acticle says"pull
disabled boats off the lee shore". My concern is how fast a squall can
come up on the Chesapeake Bay and even in a large sailer, the prospect
is not pleasant. My desire for a little more speed would be to escape
weather. The advantage of the Topaz hull is the quiet, no wake ride even
at moderate speed, Maybe Sam can correct me, but to cut the stern off
square is to do away with this advantage. I look at the quiet, no wake
advantage as efficient use of power, at least that's my interpretation.
Clyde
Kenneth Grome wrote:
which he said would become "Halifax Explorer". Motor sailer is Wm
Jochems as Delaware/Halifax uses that hull. With the rocker in that
hull, we're probably not going to make 7knts but the extrapower of the
high thrust 25 should handle tides and currents or as acticle says"pull
disabled boats off the lee shore". My concern is how fast a squall can
come up on the Chesapeake Bay and even in a large sailer, the prospect
is not pleasant. My desire for a little more speed would be to escape
weather. The advantage of the Topaz hull is the quiet, no wake ride even
at moderate speed, Maybe Sam can correct me, but to cut the stern off
square is to do away with this advantage. I look at the quiet, no wake
advantage as efficient use of power, at least that's my interpretation.
Clyde
Kenneth Grome wrote:
>Thanks Peter, there are so many Bolger groups that I never have any idea which of them might have the photos or drawings I'm looking for ... :)
>
>Minnesota is considerably longer than Delaware Trawler and it looks much more like a sheltered water boat to me.
>
>I really like the Delaware Trawler. I might like it even better if it were a motorsailer, but for a power cruiser it still attracts me. Has anyone ever built one?
>
>The article I read said the design was not finished (at that time of course) and it might encourage them to finish it if someone showed some interest in it. But that article may have been written years ago, and perhaps someone has built one by now ...
>
>Kenneth Grome
>Bagacay Boat Works
>
>
>
Kenneth, the boat has been commissioned and is on
PB&F's to-do list, but has not yet been completed.
Phil Bolger has a backlog, no telling when it will be
complete.
--- Kenneth Grome <xbb@...> wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
PB&F's to-do list, but has not yet been completed.
Phil Bolger has a backlog, no telling when it will be
complete.
--- Kenneth Grome <xbb@...> wrote:
> Thanks Peter, there are so many Bolger groups that I__________________________________________________
> never have any idea which of them might have the
> photos or drawings I'm looking for ... :)
>
> Minnesota is considerably longer than Delaware
> Trawler and it looks much more like a sheltered
> water boat to me.
>
> I really like the Delaware Trawler. I might like it
> even better if it were a motorsailer, but for a
> power cruiser it still attracts me. Has anyone ever
> built one?
>
> The article I read said the design was not finished
> (at that time of course) and it might encourage them
> to finish it if someone showed some interest in it.
> But that article may have been written years ago,
> and perhaps someone has built one by now ...
>
> Kenneth Grome
> Bagacay Boat Works
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:30:19 -0000, Peter Lenihan
> wrote:
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Grome
> <xbb@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem with naming boat designs using the
> names of U.S. states
> > is that it's nearly impossible to find pictures or
> other information
> > about them online via google.
> >>
> >> Does anyone here have any links to online
> sketches, drawings or
> > photos of Bolger's Minnesota that you can post?
> Thanks!
> >>
> >> Kenneth Grome
> >> Bagacay Boat Works
> >
> > hope this works....just scroll down to minnesota
> :-)
> >
> >
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/
> >
> > peter lenihan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bolger rules!!!
> > - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming,
> respamming, 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Thanks Peter, there are so many Bolger groups that I never have any idea which of them might have the photos or drawings I'm looking for ... :)
Minnesota is considerably longer than Delaware Trawler and it looks much more like a sheltered water boat to me.
I really like the Delaware Trawler. I might like it even better if it were a motorsailer, but for a power cruiser it still attracts me. Has anyone ever built one?
The article I read said the design was not finished (at that time of course) and it might encourage them to finish it if someone showed some interest in it. But that article may have been written years ago, and perhaps someone has built one by now ...
Kenneth Grome
Bagacay Boat Works
Minnesota is considerably longer than Delaware Trawler and it looks much more like a sheltered water boat to me.
I really like the Delaware Trawler. I might like it even better if it were a motorsailer, but for a power cruiser it still attracts me. Has anyone ever built one?
The article I read said the design was not finished (at that time of course) and it might encourage them to finish it if someone showed some interest in it. But that article may have been written years ago, and perhaps someone has built one by now ...
Kenneth Grome
Bagacay Boat Works
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 10:30:19 -0000, Peter Lenihan wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Grome <xbb@...> wrote:
>>
>> The problem with naming boat designs using the names of U.S. states
> is that it's nearly impossible to find pictures or other information
> about them online via google.
>>
>> Does anyone here have any links to online sketches, drawings or
> photos of Bolger's Minnesota that you can post? Thanks!
>>
>> Kenneth Grome
>> Bagacay Boat Works
>
> hope this works....just scroll down to minnesota :-)
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/
>
> peter lenihan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 06:39:50 -0000, Peter Lenihan wrote:
http://www.myasylum.com/sbf/messages/630.html
... and saw some finished Champlain boat photos here:
http://4dw.net/cosailor/ontario/champlain.htm
Champlain specs call for a 52 gallon fuel tank, less than half that of the Delaware Trawler 110 gallon tank, thus I suspect it will only go half as far between fill-ups. But Champlain does have about the same 6-7 knot cruising speed I guess.
To me Champlain looks rather "short and top heavy" when compared with drawings of the Delaware Trawler, but I suspect its accommodations may be better. Any idea which one will handle rough weather better?
Kenneth Grome
Bagacay Boat Works
> With the Delaware Trawler weighing about 1000 pounds more then theI checked the Champlain specs here:
> Champlain,I suspect that she would be slightly more expensive to build
> presuming we use the same quality standards ...
http://www.myasylum.com/sbf/messages/630.html
... and saw some finished Champlain boat photos here:
http://4dw.net/cosailor/ontario/champlain.htm
Champlain specs call for a 52 gallon fuel tank, less than half that of the Delaware Trawler 110 gallon tank, thus I suspect it will only go half as far between fill-ups. But Champlain does have about the same 6-7 knot cruising speed I guess.
To me Champlain looks rather "short and top heavy" when compared with drawings of the Delaware Trawler, but I suspect its accommodations may be better. Any idea which one will handle rough weather better?
Kenneth Grome
Bagacay Boat Works
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Grome <xbb@...> wrote:
about them online via google.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/
peter lenihan
>is that it's nearly impossible to find pictures or other information
> The problem with naming boat designs using the names of U.S. states
about them online via google.
>photos of Bolger's Minnesota that you can post? Thanks!
> Does anyone here have any links to online sketches, drawings or
>hope this works....just scroll down to minnesota :-)
> Kenneth Grome
> Bagacay Boat Works
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/
peter lenihan
The problem with naming boat designs using the names of U.S. states is that it's nearly impossible to find pictures or other information about them online via google.
Does anyone here have any links to online sketches, drawings or photos of Bolger's Minnesota that you can post? Thanks!
Kenneth Grome
Bagacay Boat Works
Does anyone here have any links to online sketches, drawings or photos of Bolger's Minnesota that you can post? Thanks!
Kenneth Grome
Bagacay Boat Works
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 05:53:43 -0000, donschultz8275 wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Clyde Wisner <clydewis@...> wrote:
>
> The
>> speed limitation is one of my concerns and I've been thinking of a
>> Delaware (actually now a Halifax Explorer) type house on a Topaz
> hull,
>> with still a relatively low power T 25. Clyde
>
>
> IMO another handsome and practical cabin arrangement by Bolger is his
> Minnesota.
>
> If I were to build Topaz, I would widen the aft hull to accomodate
> the "outhouse" and perhaps improve planing, and use Minnesota as a
> pattern for the cabin, just because I like the way it looks.
>
> Don Schultz
>
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
I wonder how the total cost and time to build would compare
> with say Champlain, or even WDJ?
Nels,
With the Delaware Trawler weighing about 1000 pounds more then the
Champlain,I suspect that she would be slightly more expensive to build
presuming we use the same quality standards in materials for the two
boats.I do not know WDJ's displacement off hand but if you have it
handy just remember;the heavier the boat is the more it will cost.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Bell" <smallboatdesigner@...>
wrote:
6-6.5 knots is a more beleivable
helms and accomodations,great speed on the water would appear to be
something of a waste of energy.This strikes me as particularly true
if one considers that for many boaters,once they leave their
dock/quay or ramp it is almost 99.9% certain that their ultimate
destination is their dock/quay or ramp....:-) So why not make the
time on the water last as long as possible and make it all the more
relaxing by traveling at sailboat speeds.The shallow hulls allow for
some interesting out-of-channel,near-shore exploring/traveling while
the fully enclosed helm and accomodations make concerns for most
weather irrelevent.
I certainly like the idea of using an auto-helm for long open
passages,especially if that means I am free to rustle up a warm
meal,do some meaningful chart work or just to enjoy a more relaxed
moment on the "throne".Traveling at around 6 knots means that things
will not hurry up or sneak up on you too fast before you can make
the necessary corrections.
Of course,having some extra horses,in hand, might prove very helpful
if one routinely cruises on rivers with strong currents or in areas
that have considerable tidal effects.Nothing worse then being in a
boat,which tops out at 5 knots, going against a 4 knot current....we
can all walk faster then that :-D
Beyond that, I cannot help but think that "slow" boats are also the
boats that no thief cares to steal since there is little built in
thrill with the captured prize...........
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,eager to launch his own slow-boat-to-no-where some
time this summer........................
wrote:
6-6.5 knots is a more beleivable
> maximum. After spending a couple of weeks knocking around theThousand
> Islands on Bruce Hector's 5.5 knot houseboat, I've figured outthat in an
> ideal world I'd like to go just a bit faster. Not a lot faster,mind you:
> it's just that 10 knots cuts travel time in half (or doubles thedistance
> you can cover in a day) without getting into big gas bills andrequiring
> intense concentration at the helm. Also, for a boat like Delaware,you can
> bet your that I'd install an inexpensive autopilot to allow formore
> relaxing passages where it was open enough to allow it. It mightbe that the
> autopilot would even make running at 5.5 knots acceptable!For these shallow hulled boats with virtually completely enclosed
helms and accomodations,great speed on the water would appear to be
something of a waste of energy.This strikes me as particularly true
if one considers that for many boaters,once they leave their
dock/quay or ramp it is almost 99.9% certain that their ultimate
destination is their dock/quay or ramp....:-) So why not make the
time on the water last as long as possible and make it all the more
relaxing by traveling at sailboat speeds.The shallow hulls allow for
some interesting out-of-channel,near-shore exploring/traveling while
the fully enclosed helm and accomodations make concerns for most
weather irrelevent.
I certainly like the idea of using an auto-helm for long open
passages,especially if that means I am free to rustle up a warm
meal,do some meaningful chart work or just to enjoy a more relaxed
moment on the "throne".Traveling at around 6 knots means that things
will not hurry up or sneak up on you too fast before you can make
the necessary corrections.
Of course,having some extra horses,in hand, might prove very helpful
if one routinely cruises on rivers with strong currents or in areas
that have considerable tidal effects.Nothing worse then being in a
boat,which tops out at 5 knots, going against a 4 knot current....we
can all walk faster then that :-D
Beyond that, I cannot help but think that "slow" boats are also the
boats that no thief cares to steal since there is little built in
thrill with the captured prize...........
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,eager to launch his own slow-boat-to-no-where some
time this summer........................
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Clyde Wisner <clydewis@...> wrote:
The
> speed limitation is one of my concerns and I've been thinking of a
> Delaware (actually now a Halifax Explorer) type house on a Topaz
hull,
> with still a relatively low power T 25. Clyde
IMO another handsome and practical cabin arrangement by Bolger is his
Minnesota.
If I were to build Topaz, I would widen the aft hull to accomodate
the "outhouse" and perhaps improve planing, and use Minnesota as a
pattern for the cabin, just because I like the way it looks.
Don Schultz
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donschultz8275" <donschultz@...> wrote:
You are correct. Also I was incorrect in my recall of the hull speed
when I said 13 mph. It said in the article it is capable of about 13
mpg at about 61/2 knots.
So it needs a lot more power and is considerably slower than I
thought. I wonder how the total cost and time to build would compare
with say Champlain, or even WDJ?
Nels
>a
> I recall the write up suggesting 25hp for Delaware. The 9.9 was on
> Jochems Schooner, and had to be run flat out.Thanks Don,
You are correct. Also I was incorrect in my recall of the hull speed
when I said 13 mph. It said in the article it is capable of about 13
mpg at about 61/2 knots.
So it needs a lot more power and is considerably slower than I
thought. I wonder how the total cost and time to build would compare
with say Champlain, or even WDJ?
Nels
I recall the write up suggesting 25hp for Delaware. The 9.9 was on a
Jochems Schooner, and had to be run flat out.
Jochems Schooner, and had to be run flat out.
>Also in the write-up it says you can access the spark-plugs on theT9.9
> called for - from the side deck. Also they stipulate a 5 HP back-up
> motor with separate fuel container, just in case. So it would seem
> to be about as protected and reliable as most outboards on a
> displacement hull. Cruising speed is what? About 13 mph or 10 knots?
I think this should be similar to most sailboat outboard installations.
Practically every one I see puts the prop deeper in the water than you'd see
for a planing hull.
The few time I ran my AF4 at displacement speeds with a large load (such as
towing disabled boats back to the dock) the shallow prop would suck air from
the surface and ventilate if I tried to apply too much power. That's the
reason why all those sailboat installations are so deep.
I agree that pitching completely out is unlikely. With a shallower prop
ventilation is more likely than with the prop 6" deeper. Short or long, it's
hardly worth arguing about, though.
Someone earlier predicted a top speed of 13 knots. With only 25 HP and that
deep-bellied hull on a 22' waterline, 6-6.5 knots is a more beleivable
maximum. After spending a couple of weeks knocking around the Thousand
Islands on Bruce Hector's 5.5 knot houseboat, I've figured out that in an
ideal world I'd like to go just a bit faster. Not a lot faster, mind you:
it's just that 10 knots cuts travel time in half (or doubles the distance
you can cover in a day) without getting into big gas bills and requiring
intense concentration at the helm. Also, for a boat like Delaware, you can
bet your that I'd install an inexpensive autopilot to allow for more
relaxing passages where it was open enough to allow it. It might be that the
autopilot would even make running at 5.5 knots acceptable!
Practically every one I see puts the prop deeper in the water than you'd see
for a planing hull.
The few time I ran my AF4 at displacement speeds with a large load (such as
towing disabled boats back to the dock) the shallow prop would suck air from
the surface and ventilate if I tried to apply too much power. That's the
reason why all those sailboat installations are so deep.
I agree that pitching completely out is unlikely. With a shallower prop
ventilation is more likely than with the prop 6" deeper. Short or long, it's
hardly worth arguing about, though.
Someone earlier predicted a top speed of 13 knots. With only 25 HP and that
deep-bellied hull on a 22' waterline, 6-6.5 knots is a more beleivable
maximum. After spending a couple of weeks knocking around the Thousand
Islands on Bruce Hector's 5.5 knot houseboat, I've figured out that in an
ideal world I'd like to go just a bit faster. Not a lot faster, mind you:
it's just that 10 knots cuts travel time in half (or doubles the distance
you can cover in a day) without getting into big gas bills and requiring
intense concentration at the helm. Also, for a boat like Delaware, you can
bet your that I'd install an inexpensive autopilot to allow for more
relaxing passages where it was open enough to allow it. It might be that the
autopilot would even make running at 5.5 knots acceptable!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Delaware Trawler Outboard
> On 2/24/06, John Bell <smallboatdesigner@...> wrote:
> > If it were me, I'd want the 25" shaft to put the prop deep enough to
prevent
> > pitching out in a seaway and also to allow for a taller and safer
transom
> > height.
>
> Isn't, generally, 15" considered short shaft, 20" long shaft, and 25"
> or 30" considered extra long?
>
> IMO, ask Phil Bolger which shaft he recommends, but I bet the 15"
> would fit, and be safe too. [Talking out of my hat...] I don't see
> that hull 'pitching out in a seaway'. Bear in mind, that a
> displacement hull has a large sternwave that would mitigate the
> 'pitching out' risk.
>
> Regardless of shaft length, isn't it proper to mount the motor so the
> cavitation plates are at the level of the hull bottom? IOW, a longer
> shaft requires a higher motor mount, and the height of the propeller
> doesn't change. Mounting the propeller deeper increases drag of the
> lower unit through the water, harming speed and fuel efficiency. [and,
> the cost and weight of the motor]
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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 would guess Delaware would is designed to take a 20"
shaft, just because it is getting so difficult to find
the short shaft motors. If you take a sea over the
motor-head on Delaware, it would mean you are in
breaking seas so extreme that the buoyancy of the hull
cannot lift fast enough to clear them, and at that
point you would have problems no baffle would be
sufficient to cure, in my opinion. In my Topaz, I
have had the stern pitch out in a steep chop, causing
some cavitation--which I doubt would be a problem with
Delaware, given the rocker of her hull--but I never
had a wave come close to threatening to drown the
power-head of the motor, thank God. The stern just
lifted up over following seas.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
shaft, just because it is getting so difficult to find
the short shaft motors. If you take a sea over the
motor-head on Delaware, it would mean you are in
breaking seas so extreme that the buoyancy of the hull
cannot lift fast enough to clear them, and at that
point you would have problems no baffle would be
sufficient to cure, in my opinion. In my Topaz, I
have had the stern pitch out in a steep chop, causing
some cavitation--which I doubt would be a problem with
Delaware, given the rocker of her hull--but I never
had a wave come close to threatening to drown the
power-head of the motor, thank God. The stern just
lifted up over following seas.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
On 2/24/06, John Bell <smallboatdesigner@...> wrote:
or 30" considered extra long?
IMO, ask Phil Bolger which shaft he recommends, but I bet the 15"
would fit, and be safe too. [Talking out of my hat...] I don't see
that hull 'pitching out in a seaway'. Bear in mind, that a
displacement hull has a large sternwave that would mitigate the
'pitching out' risk.
Regardless of shaft length, isn't it proper to mount the motor so the
cavitation plates are at the level of the hull bottom? IOW, a longer
shaft requires a higher motor mount, and the height of the propeller
doesn't change. Mounting the propeller deeper increases drag of the
lower unit through the water, harming speed and fuel efficiency. [and,
the cost and weight of the motor]
> If it were me, I'd want the 25" shaft to put the prop deep enough to preventIsn't, generally, 15" considered short shaft, 20" long shaft, and 25"
> pitching out in a seaway and also to allow for a taller and safer transom
> height.
or 30" considered extra long?
IMO, ask Phil Bolger which shaft he recommends, but I bet the 15"
would fit, and be safe too. [Talking out of my hat...] I don't see
that hull 'pitching out in a seaway'. Bear in mind, that a
displacement hull has a large sternwave that would mitigate the
'pitching out' risk.
Regardless of shaft length, isn't it proper to mount the motor so the
cavitation plates are at the level of the hull bottom? IOW, a longer
shaft requires a higher motor mount, and the height of the propeller
doesn't change. Mounting the propeller deeper increases drag of the
lower unit through the water, harming speed and fuel efficiency. [and,
the cost and weight of the motor]
If it were me, I'd want the 25" shaft to put the prop deep enough to prevent
pitching out in a seaway and also to allow for a taller and safer transom
height.
If you are starting from scratch, there's no reason to specify a short shaft
motor anyway. For example, when I built my AF4, I set it up for a short
shaft motor witht he idea that there would be more short shafts on the used
market. Had I realized that I would eventually buy a new motor, I would have
built the transom for a 20" shaft instead.
JB
pitching out in a seaway and also to allow for a taller and safer transom
height.
If you are starting from scratch, there's no reason to specify a short shaft
motor anyway. For example, when I built my AF4, I set it up for a short
shaft motor witht he idea that there would be more short shafts on the used
market. Had I realized that I would eventually buy a new motor, I would have
built the transom for a 20" shaft instead.
JB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clyde Wisner" <clydewis@...>
To: <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [bolger] Delaware Trawler Outboard
> I think the High thrust 25 is a 20" or 25" choice. I don't think the
> stern is in the water at cruising speed of about 7 knts max. More use of
> power will just rocker the bow up with very little gain in speed. The
> speed limitation is one of my concerns and I've been thinking of a
> Delaware (actually now a Halifax Explorer) type house on a Topaz hull,
> with still a relatively low power T 25. Clyde
>
> denisnh wrote:
>
> >Hi. I've been looking over the cartoon of the Delaware trawler
> >again. It seems like I always return to that boat when trying to
> >decide my next project.
> >
> >One question I have is the stern portion of the boat. I like the idea
> >of mounting the outboard in between those two "tails". I'm assuming
> >this is a short shaft (15") outboard in order to keep it from poking
> >above the surrounding structure? The only potential problem I see is
> >a following wave flooding the outboard since the aft section is wide
> >open. I suppose some sort of baffle could be worked into the design
> >that would help and not be too ugly. Any opinions on this?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Denis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Bolger rules!!!
> >- NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> >- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://community.webshots.com/album/480658593Zgqoul
Of my big pile of Bolger models, coincidence has it that
Delaware model happens to be closest at hand.
the aft of the boat with it?
FWIW, there is a scan of the MAIB in Bolger5
Of my big pile of Bolger models, coincidence has it that
Delaware model happens to be closest at hand.
> >a following wave flooding the outboard since the aft section is wideI see a motor well slot, not 'wide open'. Wouldn't a following wave lift
> >open.
the aft of the boat with it?
FWIW, there is a scan of the MAIB in Bolger5
I think the High thrust 25 is a 20" or 25" choice. I don't think the
stern is in the water at cruising speed of about 7 knts max. More use of
power will just rocker the bow up with very little gain in speed. The
speed limitation is one of my concerns and I've been thinking of a
Delaware (actually now a Halifax Explorer) type house on a Topaz hull,
with still a relatively low power T 25. Clyde
denisnh wrote:
stern is in the water at cruising speed of about 7 knts max. More use of
power will just rocker the bow up with very little gain in speed. The
speed limitation is one of my concerns and I've been thinking of a
Delaware (actually now a Halifax Explorer) type house on a Topaz hull,
with still a relatively low power T 25. Clyde
denisnh wrote:
>Hi. I've been looking over the cartoon of the Delaware trawler
>again. It seems like I always return to that boat when trying to
>decide my next project.
>
>One question I have is the stern portion of the boat. I like the idea
>of mounting the outboard in between those two "tails". I'm assuming
>this is a short shaft (15") outboard in order to keep it from poking
>above the surrounding structure? The only potential problem I see is
>a following wave flooding the outboard since the aft section is wide
>open. I suppose some sort of baffle could be worked into the design
>that would help and not be too ugly. Any opinions on this?
>
>Thanks,
>Denis
>
>
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
>- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "denisnh" <denisnh@...> wrote:
A short shaft OB is plenty,really,since once the boat is underway
the hull shape(rocker,to be specific) will ensure good and ample solid
water for the prop.
Unless you plan on anchoring by the stern,in an exposed
anchoraged,during a storm or running backwards on windy days,no wave
is going to normally flood the engine.Anchored from the bow,she will
ride like a duck with her nose to the wind and waves.Underway,she will
cruise faster then most wave trains.In particularily heavy going,where
you find yourself caught out in "small craft warning" conditions,a
prudent skipper will avoid running downwind at any speed less then the
waves for fear of a)being broached and/or b) getting swamped by an on-
coming wave.
A "baffle" or some such device would be just another thing to fuss
over getting it right since it will have to be some how made to lift
so that the engine could be tilted up when not in use etc,etc.....
It is a very handsome design and I hope PCB&F'S do eventually get
someone to actually commission it and they,in turn,find the time to
finish it......oh well,hope does spring eternal!
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan, tossing in my own 2 cents worth of opinion....
>The only potential problem I see is
> a following wave flooding the outboard since the aft section is wideDenis,
> open. I suppose some sort of baffle could be worked into the design
> that would help and not be too ugly. Any opinions on this?
>
> Thanks,
> Denis
A short shaft OB is plenty,really,since once the boat is underway
the hull shape(rocker,to be specific) will ensure good and ample solid
water for the prop.
Unless you plan on anchoring by the stern,in an exposed
anchoraged,during a storm or running backwards on windy days,no wave
is going to normally flood the engine.Anchored from the bow,she will
ride like a duck with her nose to the wind and waves.Underway,she will
cruise faster then most wave trains.In particularily heavy going,where
you find yourself caught out in "small craft warning" conditions,a
prudent skipper will avoid running downwind at any speed less then the
waves for fear of a)being broached and/or b) getting swamped by an on-
coming wave.
A "baffle" or some such device would be just another thing to fuss
over getting it right since it will have to be some how made to lift
so that the engine could be tilted up when not in use etc,etc.....
It is a very handsome design and I hope PCB&F'S do eventually get
someone to actually commission it and they,in turn,find the time to
finish it......oh well,hope does spring eternal!
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan, tossing in my own 2 cents worth of opinion....
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "denisnh" <denisnh@...> wrote:
in that regard to PCB&F. Be sure to include return phone and fax
number:-)
Looking at the cartoon I think there is room for a long-shaft if the
engine is mount is higher and the coaming would still hide it. Also
in the write-up it says you can access the spark-plugs on the T9.9
called for - from the side deck. Also they stipulate a 5 HP back-up
motor with separate fuel container, just in case. So it would seem
to be about as protected and reliable as most outboards on a
displacement hull. Cruising speed is what? About 13 mph or 10 knots?
I really like that design myself. Reasonably simple to build, fuel
efficient and nice looking. Would hardly hear the motor from the
helm I would guess.
Nels
>idea
> Hi. I've been looking over the cartoon of the Delaware trawler
> again. It seems like I always return to that boat when trying to
> decide my next project.
>
> One question I have is the stern portion of the boat. I like the
> of mounting the outboard in between those two "tails". I'massuming
> this is a short shaft (15") outboard in order to keep it frompoking
> above the surrounding structure? The only potential problem I seeis
> a following wave flooding the outboard since the aft section iswide
> open. I suppose some sort of baffle could be worked into thedesign
> that would help and not be too ugly. Any opinions on this?That's a fair question Denis, and you might consider faxing a query
>
> Thanks,
> Denis
in that regard to PCB&F. Be sure to include return phone and fax
number:-)
Looking at the cartoon I think there is room for a long-shaft if the
engine is mount is higher and the coaming would still hide it. Also
in the write-up it says you can access the spark-plugs on the T9.9
called for - from the side deck. Also they stipulate a 5 HP back-up
motor with separate fuel container, just in case. So it would seem
to be about as protected and reliable as most outboards on a
displacement hull. Cruising speed is what? About 13 mph or 10 knots?
I really like that design myself. Reasonably simple to build, fuel
efficient and nice looking. Would hardly hear the motor from the
helm I would guess.
Nels
Hi. I've been looking over the cartoon of the Delaware trawler
again. It seems like I always return to that boat when trying to
decide my next project.
One question I have is the stern portion of the boat. I like the idea
of mounting the outboard in between those two "tails". I'm assuming
this is a short shaft (15") outboard in order to keep it from poking
above the surrounding structure? The only potential problem I see is
a following wave flooding the outboard since the aft section is wide
open. I suppose some sort of baffle could be worked into the design
that would help and not be too ugly. Any opinions on this?
Thanks,
Denis
again. It seems like I always return to that boat when trying to
decide my next project.
One question I have is the stern portion of the boat. I like the idea
of mounting the outboard in between those two "tails". I'm assuming
this is a short shaft (15") outboard in order to keep it from poking
above the surrounding structure? The only potential problem I see is
a following wave flooding the outboard since the aft section is wide
open. I suppose some sort of baffle could be worked into the design
that would help and not be too ugly. Any opinions on this?
Thanks,
Denis