RE: [bolger] stern-o-rama revisited
to add to Sam's comments:
The Delaware (something I was looking at with great interest prior to
obtaining Esther Mae) has slightly deeper draft than a Tennessee giving the
interior more head room. Most of the sharpies designed to plane under power
have kneeling headroom only, keeping draft shallow, design simple and weight
down. The flat bottom allows for easier planning at lower power with the
reduced weight, but is sacrificed in on board accommodations by lack of
headroom to keep the center of gravity reasonable. One of Phil Bolger's
comments to me was that Esther Mae is built closely to the original design
and he expressed concern about versions with a lot up top. Then there is
the efficiency of such hulls at low, non planning speeds, Phil expressed
great desire to have data regarding performance at non planning speed,
noting that the economy should exceptional with a four stroke outboard.
Caloosarat
_____
From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Sam Glasscock
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:01 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] stern-o-rama revisited
I'll take a crack at that, Mike. The rockered hull of
Delaware would drive more easily under very low power,
and would be more comfortable in a seaway. Topaz
planes nicely on a 31 foot hull--but her tendency to
squat would be exaggerated if you scaled her down.
She is slender already, if you took her down a third
she would only have 4.5 foot beam; if you shortened
her without scaling her down she would loose her
slenderness which contributes to her performance, and
in any case I doubt she would plane well at 20' or so
with the canoe stern. Of course, if you shortened
her, kept the beam the same, and put in a traditional
broad stern you would have plenty of bearing surface
to plane well, but you would not have a Topaz--you
would have something more like a cabin clam skiff.
Sam
--- Mike <mkstocks@...> wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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
SPONSORED LINKS
Phil
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Phil+bolger&w1=Phil+bolger&w2=Bolger&w3
=Bolger+center&c=3&s=48&.sig=Pc8z25cR4COcdfez9VtA3Q> bolger Bolger
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Bolger&w1=Phil+bolger&w2=Bolger&w3=Bolg
er+center&c=3&s=48&.sig=6EWWlB12gFVjZ3X2M-bVyw> Bolger
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Bolger+center&w1=Phil+bolger&w2=Bolger&
w3=Bolger+center&c=3&s=48&.sig=_e0rliiyb4wm5e-hP1mV2g> center
_____
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "bolger <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger> "
on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
The Delaware (something I was looking at with great interest prior to
obtaining Esther Mae) has slightly deeper draft than a Tennessee giving the
interior more head room. Most of the sharpies designed to plane under power
have kneeling headroom only, keeping draft shallow, design simple and weight
down. The flat bottom allows for easier planning at lower power with the
reduced weight, but is sacrificed in on board accommodations by lack of
headroom to keep the center of gravity reasonable. One of Phil Bolger's
comments to me was that Esther Mae is built closely to the original design
and he expressed concern about versions with a lot up top. Then there is
the efficiency of such hulls at low, non planning speeds, Phil expressed
great desire to have data regarding performance at non planning speed,
noting that the economy should exceptional with a four stroke outboard.
Caloosarat
_____
From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Sam Glasscock
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:01 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [bolger] stern-o-rama revisited
I'll take a crack at that, Mike. The rockered hull of
Delaware would drive more easily under very low power,
and would be more comfortable in a seaway. Topaz
planes nicely on a 31 foot hull--but her tendency to
squat would be exaggerated if you scaled her down.
She is slender already, if you took her down a third
she would only have 4.5 foot beam; if you shortened
her without scaling her down she would loose her
slenderness which contributes to her performance, and
in any case I doubt she would plane well at 20' or so
with the canoe stern. Of course, if you shortened
her, kept the beam the same, and put in a traditional
broad stern you would have plenty of bearing surface
to plane well, but you would not have a Topaz--you
would have something more like a cabin clam skiff.
Sam
--- Mike <mkstocks@...> wrote:
> Howdy-__________________________________________________
>
> Let me re-spin my earlier question a bit. Compare
> Sitka/Topaz vs
> Delaware. What I am really wondering: what would
> be a motivation for
> turning a 24' sailing hull into a motorboat that
> cannot plane
> (Delaware) versus scaling the Sitka/Topaz hull to
> 24'? Both leave
> little wake at hull speed, but S/T has the advantage
> of being able to
> plane.
>
> thanks
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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
SPONSORED LINKS
Phil
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Phil+bolger&w1=Phil+bolger&w2=Bolger&w3
=Bolger+center&c=3&s=48&.sig=Pc8z25cR4COcdfez9VtA3Q> bolger Bolger
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Bolger&w1=Phil+bolger&w2=Bolger&w3=Bolg
er+center&c=3&s=48&.sig=6EWWlB12gFVjZ3X2M-bVyw> Bolger
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Bolger+center&w1=Phil+bolger&w2=Bolger&
w3=Bolger+center&c=3&s=48&.sig=_e0rliiyb4wm5e-hP1mV2g> center
_____
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "bolger <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger> "
on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'll take a crack at that, Mike. The rockered hull of
Delaware would drive more easily under very low power,
and would be more comfortable in a seaway. Topaz
planes nicely on a 31 foot hull--but her tendency to
squat would be exaggerated if you scaled her down.
She is slender already, if you took her down a third
she would only have 4.5 foot beam; if you shortened
her without scaling her down she would loose her
slenderness which contributes to her performance, and
in any case I doubt she would plane well at 20' or so
with the canoe stern. Of course, if you shortened
her, kept the beam the same, and put in a traditional
broad stern you would have plenty of bearing surface
to plane well, but you would not have a Topaz--you
would have something more like a cabin clam skiff.
Sam
--- Mike <mkstocks@...> wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Delaware would drive more easily under very low power,
and would be more comfortable in a seaway. Topaz
planes nicely on a 31 foot hull--but her tendency to
squat would be exaggerated if you scaled her down.
She is slender already, if you took her down a third
she would only have 4.5 foot beam; if you shortened
her without scaling her down she would loose her
slenderness which contributes to her performance, and
in any case I doubt she would plane well at 20' or so
with the canoe stern. Of course, if you shortened
her, kept the beam the same, and put in a traditional
broad stern you would have plenty of bearing surface
to plane well, but you would not have a Topaz--you
would have something more like a cabin clam skiff.
Sam
--- Mike <mkstocks@...> wrote:
> Howdy-__________________________________________________
>
> Let me re-spin my earlier question a bit. Compare
> Sitka/Topaz vs
> Delaware. What I am really wondering: what would
> be a motivation for
> turning a 24' sailing hull into a motorboat that
> cannot plane
> (Delaware) versus scaling the Sitka/Topaz hull to
> 24'? Both leave
> little wake at hull speed, but S/T has the advantage
> of being able to
> plane.
>
> thanks
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Howdy-
Let me re-spin my earlier question a bit. Compare Sitka/Topaz vs
Delaware. What I am really wondering: what would be a motivation for
turning a 24' sailing hull into a motorboat that cannot plane
(Delaware) versus scaling the Sitka/Topaz hull to 24'? Both leave
little wake at hull speed, but S/T has the advantage of being able to
plane.
thanks
Mike
Let me re-spin my earlier question a bit. Compare Sitka/Topaz vs
Delaware. What I am really wondering: what would be a motivation for
turning a 24' sailing hull into a motorboat that cannot plane
(Delaware) versus scaling the Sitka/Topaz hull to 24'? Both leave
little wake at hull speed, but S/T has the advantage of being able to
plane.
thanks
Mike