Re: Recent News from PCB, Cartoon 40
Hi Nels,
One letter to PCB three years ago reporting on our Light Schooner has
now been recycled twice by him - once in MAIB a couple years ago and
now in WB. I hope I don't get sued if somebody's boat takes longer to
build or goes slower than my guesstimates!
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
> Of course I look up to you now as an "expert" after seeing the seniorThat would be a big mistake!
> editor of Woodenboat drop you name a couple of times in the latest
> issue:-D
One letter to PCB three years ago reporting on our Light Schooner has
now been recycled twice by him - once in MAIB a couple years ago and
now in WB. I hope I don't get sued if somebody's boat takes longer to
build or goes slower than my guesstimates!
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "adventures_in_astrophotography"
<jon@...> wrote:
I found your explanation very enlightening.
Of course I look up to you now as an "expert" after seeing the senior
editor of Woodenboat drop you name a couple of times in the latest
issue:-D
Nels
<jon@...> wrote:
> I'm not saying it won't work at all in this boat, I just think it won'tThanks Jon,
> be as effective as it might seem at first.
>
> Jon Kolb
> www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
>
I found your explanation very enlightening.
Of course I look up to you now as an "expert" after seeing the senior
editor of Woodenboat drop you name a couple of times in the latest
issue:-D
Nels
Hi Peter,
I agree with your statement that filling the bottom part of the v-shape
with water improves stability, but not because it acts as ballast all
the time. It is simply neutral bouyancy, not the positive bouyancy
that the empty space would have, and not the negative bouyancy that
lead or another heavy ballast material would have. For stability,
neutral bouyancy is better than positive bouyancy in that part of the
hull. However, it won't help the boat when heeled as much as negative
bouyancy in that location unless it gets above the waterline where it
then acts against the heeling motion of the boat. Any empty volume
submerged by heeling will resist the heeling force, but the water will
do nothing to counter this force as long as it remains below the
surface as neutral bouyancy. The v-shape of this hull concentrates the
flooded volume near the centerline, thus requiring more heel to get
much of it above the surface, which I claim makes it less effective as
ballast than denser materials.
Because of this, I maintain that my original statement is valid, but is
perhaps better if restated: Replacing the lead/steel/concrete called
for on the plans with neutral bouyancy in the same location will not be
effective *as ballast* unless the boat heels enough to get some of that
volume above the water line.
I'm not saying it won't work at all in this boat, I just think it won't
be as effective as it might seem at first.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
> No.Such a discussion may not be frutiless, so I'll bite - politely I hope.
> Water ballast is a tricky and misunderstood thing, and I don't mean to
> start a long, fruitless discussion, but the above sentence is not true
> in this case, even if PCB did write something to that effect. The
> comparison is between the hull with water ballast and the hull with
> the "ballast tank" removed (in the sense of being taken off the
> outside of the boat). In this case, the "tank removed" hull would have
> the deepest part of the v-bottome removed - a completely different
> hull shape.
>
> If you keep the v-shape and fill the bottom part with water ballast,
> you lower the center of gravity (or, equivalently raise the center of
> buoyancy) which improves stability.
I agree with your statement that filling the bottom part of the v-shape
with water improves stability, but not because it acts as ballast all
the time. It is simply neutral bouyancy, not the positive bouyancy
that the empty space would have, and not the negative bouyancy that
lead or another heavy ballast material would have. For stability,
neutral bouyancy is better than positive bouyancy in that part of the
hull. However, it won't help the boat when heeled as much as negative
bouyancy in that location unless it gets above the waterline where it
then acts against the heeling motion of the boat. Any empty volume
submerged by heeling will resist the heeling force, but the water will
do nothing to counter this force as long as it remains below the
surface as neutral bouyancy. The v-shape of this hull concentrates the
flooded volume near the centerline, thus requiring more heel to get
much of it above the surface, which I claim makes it less effective as
ballast than denser materials.
Because of this, I maintain that my original statement is valid, but is
perhaps better if restated: Replacing the lead/steel/concrete called
for on the plans with neutral bouyancy in the same location will not be
effective *as ballast* unless the boat heels enough to get some of that
volume above the water line.
I'm not saying it won't work at all in this boat, I just think it won't
be as effective as it might seem at first.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
Sincerely,
Peter,the younger pup,Lenihan from along the St.Lawrence...........
>Fair enough,you young pup from the middle of Canada :-D
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <peterlenihan@> w
> >
> > Define "recent" :-)
> >
> Anything after BWAOM seems recent to me.
>
> Nels
Sincerely,
Peter,the younger pup,Lenihan from along the St.Lawrence...........
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <peterlenihan@...> w
Nels
>Anything after BWAOM seems recent to me.
> Define "recent" :-)
>
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
Seems to me the WDJ design is getting a bit long in the tooth to be
called recent.
But nothing recent springs readily to mind.....bigger boats,some
with
steel armor plate, now being the order of the day and all. Not at
all
sure this is solely a Susanne phenomena.It may more accurately be a
joint effort driven by God and his Prophet :-)
Sincerely
Peter Lenihan,young and restless pup watching the time fly right
past
his window...zip!....and screaming at the top of his lungs,"wait fer
me ya bastard!",from along the dark and evil shores of the
St.Lawrence...............
>ballast?
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@> wrote:
>
> > Have there been any recent Bolger designs that call for water
>Define "recent" :-)
> Ooops - WDJ Schooner is one!
>
> Nels
Seems to me the WDJ design is getting a bit long in the tooth to be
called recent.
But nothing recent springs readily to mind.....bigger boats,some
with
steel armor plate, now being the order of the day and all. Not at
all
sure this is solely a Susanne phenomena.It may more accurately be a
joint effort driven by God and his Prophet :-)
Sincerely
Peter Lenihan,young and restless pup watching the time fly right
past
his window...zip!....and screaming at the top of his lungs,"wait fer
me ya bastard!",from along the dark and evil shores of the
St.Lawrence...............
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
prescribed "water ballast" was to make boats lighter on the trailer
(for small boats) and to make things a bit more possible for
trailering much bigger boats.
The ballast really works when it is raised above the water-line and
otherwise does what Bruce descibes above.Similar to taking a bunch a
friends out in a really small boat or filling it up with cases of beer.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
>I was always under the impression the only reason Bolger ever
> >which improves stability.
>
> Also, the water ballast provides mass, (and more importantly,
> inertia), to the boat which is desirable when tacking through stays,
> and for comfort while bobbing around in motorboat wakes, etc..
prescribed "water ballast" was to make boats lighter on the trailer
(for small boats) and to make things a bit more possible for
trailering much bigger boats.
The ballast really works when it is raised above the water-line and
otherwise does what Bruce descibes above.Similar to taking a bunch a
friends out in a really small boat or filling it up with cases of beer.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@...> wrote:
Nels
> Have there been any recent Bolger designs that call for water ballast?Ooops - WDJ Schooner is one!
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@...> wrote:
Seems to me that most of the focus has been on either no ballast with
Birdwatcher topsides, using internal equipment as ballast i.e.
batteries, engine etc., in a box keel, a heavy centerboard, or an
armor-plate being applied to the bottom as ballast.
All this since Susanne has appeared?
Nels
> He did. What he meant was that if you attach a (streamlined)Have there been any recent Bolger designs that call for water ballast?
> water-filled box to the outside of the hull, it won't change the
> hydrostatics unless it's above the waterline. True enough, but subject
> to misinterpretation. It will change the dynamic behavior thru
> intertia, which may be helpful, but which is not the point.
>
> Two things to keep in mind when comparing boats and boat features. 1)
> All comparisons are between two or more things and it's best to know
> exactly what things. 2) It is impossible to change only one thing on a
> boat. For example, most any change in shape causes a change in weight.
>
> Peter
>
Seems to me that most of the focus has been on either no ballast with
Birdwatcher topsides, using internal equipment as ballast i.e.
batteries, engine etc., in a box keel, a heavy centerboard, or an
armor-plate being applied to the bottom as ballast.
All this since Susanne has appeared?
Nels
> I recall reading Bolger's comment on water ballastHe did. What he meant was that if you attach a (streamlined)
> recently and it hurt but I put it out of my mind.
> He didn't mean what he said!
water-filled box to the outside of the hull, it won't change the
hydrostatics unless it's above the waterline. True enough, but subject
to misinterpretation. It will change the dynamic behavior thru
intertia, which may be helpful, but which is not the point.
Two things to keep in mind when comparing boats and boat features. 1)
All comparisons are between two or more things and it's best to know
exactly what things. 2) It is impossible to change only one thing on a
boat. For example, most any change in shape causes a change in weight.
Peter
Peter,
Thank you for that short but informative explination. It just kills me not to add to it. I was going to ignore the comment until you chimed in. I recall reading Bolger's comment on water ballast receintly and it hurt but I put it out of my mind. He didn't mean what he said! 8^D
Like if you put 100 pounds of water in the front of a boat below the waterline it wouldn't ride farther down in the bow than if you put the 100 pounds in the back.......... (man runs screaming out of room!!!!!)
Sincerely,
Gene T.
"A house ashore is but a boat, so poorly
built it will not float ---- "
----- Original Message ----
From: pvanderwaart <pvanderwaart@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:42:15 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Recent News from PCB, Cartoon 40
Water ballast is a tricky and misunderstood thing, and I don't mean to
start a long, fruitless discussion, but the above sentence is not true
in this case, even if PCB did write something to that effect. The
comparison is between the hull with water ballast and the hull with
the "ballast tank" removed (in the sense of being taken off the
outside of the boat). In this case, the "tank removed" hull would have
the deepest part of the v-bottome removed - a completely different
hull shape.
If you keep the v-shape and fill the bottom part with water ballast,
you lower the center of gravity (or, equivalently raise the center of
buoyancy) which improves stability.
Peter
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thank you for that short but informative explination. It just kills me not to add to it. I was going to ignore the comment until you chimed in. I recall reading Bolger's comment on water ballast receintly and it hurt but I put it out of my mind. He didn't mean what he said! 8^D
Like if you put 100 pounds of water in the front of a boat below the waterline it wouldn't ride farther down in the bow than if you put the 100 pounds in the back.......... (man runs screaming out of room!!!!!)
Sincerely,
Gene T.
"A house ashore is but a boat, so poorly
built it will not float ---- "
----- Original Message ----
From: pvanderwaart <pvanderwaart@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 1:42:15 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Recent News from PCB, Cartoon 40
> Unless water ballast was outboard under the seats, I don't see how itNo.
> could be effective in this design, since it has to get above the
> waterline to work,...
Water ballast is a tricky and misunderstood thing, and I don't mean to
start a long, fruitless discussion, but the above sentence is not true
in this case, even if PCB did write something to that effect. The
comparison is between the hull with water ballast and the hull with
the "ballast tank" removed (in the sense of being taken off the
outside of the boat). In this case, the "tank removed" hull would have
the deepest part of the v-bottome removed - a completely different
hull shape.
If you keep the v-shape and fill the bottom part with water ballast,
you lower the center of gravity (or, equivalently raise the center of
buoyancy) which improves stability.
Peter
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>which improves stability.Also, the water ballast provides mass, (and more importantly,
inertia), to the boat which is desirable when tacking through stays,
and for comfort while bobbing around in motorboat wakes, etc..
> Unless water ballast was outboard under the seats, I don't see how itNo.
> could be effective in this design, since it has to get above the
> waterline to work,...
Water ballast is a tricky and misunderstood thing, and I don't mean to
start a long, fruitless discussion, but the above sentence is not true
in this case, even if PCB did write something to that effect. The
comparison is between the hull with water ballast and the hull with
the "ballast tank" removed (in the sense of being taken off the
outside of the boat). In this case, the "tank removed" hull would have
the deepest part of the v-bottome removed - a completely different
hull shape.
If you keep the v-shape and fill the bottom part with water ballast,
you lower the center of gravity (or, equivalently raise the center of
buoyancy) which improves stability.
Peter
Hi Gary,
Unless water ballast was outboard under the seats, I don't see how it
could be effective in this design, since it has to get above the
waterline to work, and you'd have to be really sailing on your ear to
get the centerboard slot bilge area out of the water in this hull. Is
out under the seats what you had in mind? I'm planning to keep it
simple and use bags of lead shot.
called Summer Ease in the data base of designs for this group. I
called it the latter when I asked for it, and that's how PCB referred
to it in his letter, but I believe that the plans don't mention the
name anywhere, just the man who commissioned it. Either way, it's #471
and you found it.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
> Jon: Are you going to do the 15.5 or 19.5 foot version of Cartoon 40?I'm planning to build the 125% 19'-5" stretch version like you did.
> I did the longer, and enjoyed the extra cockpit space and the sleeker
> lines. You'll have a blast with it. Peter, if I ever rebuild mine,
> I'm thinking of doing it with a Birdwatcher type cabin, and I'd use
> water ballast instead of sandbags ...
Unless water ballast was outboard under the seats, I don't see how it
could be effective in this design, since it has to get above the
waterline to work, and you'd have to be really sailing on your ear to
get the centerboard slot bilge area out of the water in this hull. Is
out under the seats what you had in mind? I'm planning to keep it
simple and use bags of lead shot.
> Is there on online line to #471, Summer Ease? I can't find itThe design is called Summer Breeze in bolger_study_plans_only, but
> anywhere, although I can find Summer Breeze . . .
called Summer Ease in the data base of designs for this group. I
called it the latter when I asked for it, and that's how PCB referred
to it in his letter, but I believe that the plans don't mention the
name anywhere, just the man who commissioned it. Either way, it's #471
and you found it.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
I think John Bell's Summer Breeze is Summer Ease. PCB suggested this
design when I wrote about enlarging my Lily for a sail. I ordered the
plans but then encountered my Freedom 21. Clyde
gbship wrote:
design when I wrote about enlarging my Lily for a sail. I ordered the
plans but then encountered my Freedom 21. Clyde
gbship wrote:
> Jon: Are you going to do the 15.5 or 19.5 foot version of Cartoon 40?[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I did the longer, and enjoyed the extra cockpit space and the sleeker
> lines. You'll have a blast with it. Peter, if I ever rebuild mine,
> I'm thinking of doing it with a Birdwatcher type cabin, and I'd use
> water ballast instead of sandbags ...
>
> Is there on online line to #471, Summer Ease? I can't find it
> anywhere, although I can find Summer Breeze . . .
>
> Gary Blankenship
>
> --- I
>
>
>
>
Jon: Are you going to do the 15.5 or 19.5 foot version of Cartoon 40?
I did the longer, and enjoyed the extra cockpit space and the sleeker
lines. You'll have a blast with it. Peter, if I ever rebuild mine,
I'm thinking of doing it with a Birdwatcher type cabin, and I'd use
water ballast instead of sandbags ...
Is there on online line to #471, Summer Ease? I can't find it
anywhere, although I can find Summer Breeze . . .
Gary Blankenship
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "adventures_in_astrophotography"
<jon@...> wrote:
I did the longer, and enjoyed the extra cockpit space and the sleeker
lines. You'll have a blast with it. Peter, if I ever rebuild mine,
I'm thinking of doing it with a Birdwatcher type cabin, and I'd use
water ballast instead of sandbags ...
Is there on online line to #471, Summer Ease? I can't find it
anywhere, although I can find Summer Breeze . . .
Gary Blankenship
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "adventures_in_astrophotography"
<jon@...> wrote:
>while I
> One of those nifty blue tubes showed up unexpectedly last week
> was off elk hunting. More accurately, I was aggravating a tear ofmy
> left patellar tendon while carrying a rifle in an area of ColoradoDay
> where elk are known to live, and had to come home early and empty
> handed.
>
> Inside this tube was a letter from PCB in response to mine of early
> September. That was itself a followup to his phone call on Labor
> weekend. During that call, he had offered some small boat plans ashe
> compensation for the long delay in our commission. The blue tube
> contained the plans for both Cartoon 40 (which he obviously forgot
> had already sent me back in Sept), and to my joy also those for#471
> Summer Ease. I hope to build Cartoon 40 this winter, assuming I amI'll
> able to bend my knee past 90 degrees ever again. I don't know if
> ever get around to a big project like #471, but it sure would makea
> fine camp cruiser for someplace like Voyageurs Nat. Park. PCBwrites
> that Gary Blankenship's Cartoon 40 is the only one he knows of, andon
> that to his knowledge #471 has never been built, as the man who
> commissioned the design apparently died before building her.
>
> PCB also included some reprints of the various WB and MAIB articles
> BW and BWII, saying in his letter that he considers BWII a goodwords
> alternative to #471 for camping and his best design ever. Strong
> from a man with nearly 700 numbered designs. He mentioned thatBWII
> plans outsell BW by 15 to 1.the
>
> But wait, that's not all the tube contained! Also promised during
> phone call from Sept. was a sketch of AS34, and there it was! Theand
> drawing is labeled as the "final concept" and shows both plan view
> cross section of the interior, with enough other information to seecross
> that it's a cat yawl. A good description might be that it's a
> between Yonder and Le Cabotin. Sharpie hull with surfaces like Le(although
> Cabotin, rig, doghouse, and interior layout more like Yonder
> the head is up forward). I owe him a response with some photos ofmy
> Long Dory and Diablo projects, and will ask at that time if I maycopyrighted
> photograph and post on this forum the AS34 drawing - it's
> material after all.all
>
> Also mentioned in the letter was that the big project which delayed
> the commissions so long has resulted in a long technical report forthe
> customer (the USN), and is to be published in the journal NAVSEA.The
> editor, however, has requested that the report be rewritten to makeit
> more understandable to the typical reader (some 90,000 or so), sothey
> have to start all over on a new report for this journal. Theoriginal
> work will supposedly be available on the journal's website, which Iwas
> unable to locate in a quick search just now.you
>
> Since it's unclassified and PB&F have been talking to their friends
> about it, according to Susanne, I think it's probably OK to tell
> that the project is a proposal for a craft that can land around 100heard)
> tons (or two MBTs) quickly (I think 20 knots was the number I
> from something like 100 miles offshore using "modest" power (about2400
> hp) for low cost and efficiency, and return to sea. Apparently theneeded
> current fast landing craft in use don't have the load capacity
> (I think these are mostly air cushion vehicles). Some of thecompeting
> proposals apparently couldn't make the "modest" requirement, thespeed,
> the range requirement (specifically getting all the way back), orhad
> other problems, and that's about the time PB&F got called in, fromwhat
> I can intuit. PCB writes that the proposal has apparently surviveda
> gruelling review process, and I recall from our last phoneconversation
> that a good number of high-brow N.A.s were involved in thisscrutiny.
> I'm pretty sure this is not a plywood "instant" boat.in
>
> Still more news. PCB reviewed the last sketches I sent them two or
> three years ago and has concurred with our ideas for the interior
> layout of #668 Auriga! He says he'll draw it that way unless some
> obvious technical issue comes up. He's also agreed to have a go at
> revising the sheerline for a more sweeping profile. I'll also ask
> my response if I can photograph and post some of the existingproposal
> drawings for Auriga here - I know you folks would love to see whatanyone
> we've beem cooking up for our retirement home.
>
> Lastly, my website is back on line after switching providers, if
> cares about that. Since I'm limited in physical activity for acouple
> of weeks, expect some FastBrick updates (finally!) in the nearfuture.
>
> Jon Kolb
> www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
>
Hi Chris,
nowhere near ready for publication in the Proceedings printed journal,
as they are apparently just starting on the rewrite. I suspect that
the technical material will not get posted on the website until
publication of the accompanying report.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
> I just hunted around the NAVSEA website: www.navsea.navy.mil andfound
> no articles. I suspect it would show up in the Innovations page. IThanks for the website URL. My understanding is that the report is
> also did a "smart search" from the home page. Perhaps it is not yet
> posted. I have been retired from the reserves for 3 years now, and I
> haven't seen a printed journal in a while. I will try to remember to
> contact one of my old buddies to try and track this down.
nowhere near ready for publication in the Proceedings printed journal,
as they are apparently just starting on the rewrite. I suspect that
the technical material will not get posted on the website until
publication of the accompanying report.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
Jon,
I just hunted around the NAVSEA website: www.navsea.navy.mil and found
no articles. I suspect it would show up in the Innovations page. I
also did a "smart search" from the home page. Perhaps it is not yet
posted. I have been retired from the reserves for 3 years now, and I
haven't seen a printed journal in a while. I will try to remember to
contact one of my old buddies to try and track this down.
V/R
Chris
the report be rewritten to make it more understandable to the typical
reader (some 90,000 or so), so theyhave to start all over on a new
report for this journal. The original work will supposedly be available
on the journal's website, which I was unable to locate in a quick search
just now.
snip..
I just hunted around the NAVSEA website: www.navsea.navy.mil and found
no articles. I suspect it would show up in the Innovations page. I
also did a "smart search" from the home page. Perhaps it is not yet
posted. I have been retired from the reserves for 3 years now, and I
haven't seen a printed journal in a while. I will try to remember to
contact one of my old buddies to try and track this down.
V/R
Chris
>published in the journal NAVSEA. The editor, however, has requested that
> adventures_in_astrophotography wrote:
>
the report be rewritten to make it more understandable to the typical
reader (some 90,000 or so), so theyhave to start all over on a new
report for this journal. The original work will supposedly be available
on the journal's website, which I was unable to locate in a quick search
just now.
snip..
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "adventures_in_astrophotography"
<jon@...> wrote:
Fantastic good news all around! Glad THIS part is now in the
open :-) Always so hard to tell when some information is told in
confidence or not and precisely how to handle it amongst
aficinados!
Can't wait to see the AS-34......waiting is the stuff of maddness!
Thanks Jon!
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,busy,busy ,busy.........
<jon@...> wrote:
>> Also mentioned in the letter was that the big project whichdelayed all
> the commissions so long has resulted in a long technical reportfor the
> customer (the USN), and is to be published in the journal NAVSEA.The
> editor, however, has requested that the report be rewritten tomake it
> more understandable to the typical reader (some 90,000 or so), sothey
> have to start all over on a new report for this journal.Jon,
Fantastic good news all around! Glad THIS part is now in the
open :-) Always so hard to tell when some information is told in
confidence or not and precisely how to handle it amongst
aficinados!
Can't wait to see the AS-34......waiting is the stuff of maddness!
Thanks Jon!
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,busy,busy ,busy.........
One of those nifty blue tubes showed up unexpectedly last week while I
was off elk hunting. More accurately, I was aggravating a tear of my
left patellar tendon while carrying a rifle in an area of Colorado
where elk are known to live, and had to come home early and empty
handed.
Inside this tube was a letter from PCB in response to mine of early
September. That was itself a followup to his phone call on Labor Day
weekend. During that call, he had offered some small boat plans as
compensation for the long delay in our commission. The blue tube
contained the plans for both Cartoon 40 (which he obviously forgot he
had already sent me back in Sept), and to my joy also those for #471
Summer Ease. I hope to build Cartoon 40 this winter, assuming I am
able to bend my knee past 90 degrees ever again. I don't know if I'll
ever get around to a big project like #471, but it sure would make a
fine camp cruiser for someplace like Voyageurs Nat. Park. PCB writes
that Gary Blankenship's Cartoon 40 is the only one he knows of, and
that to his knowledge #471 has never been built, as the man who
commissioned the design apparently died before building her.
PCB also included some reprints of the various WB and MAIB articles on
BW and BWII, saying in his letter that he considers BWII a good
alternative to #471 for camping and his best design ever. Strong words
from a man with nearly 700 numbered designs. He mentioned that BWII
plans outsell BW by 15 to 1.
But wait, that's not all the tube contained! Also promised during the
phone call from Sept. was a sketch of AS34, and there it was! The
drawing is labeled as the "final concept" and shows both plan view and
cross section of the interior, with enough other information to see
that it's a cat yawl. A good description might be that it's a cross
between Yonder and Le Cabotin. Sharpie hull with surfaces like Le
Cabotin, rig, doghouse, and interior layout more like Yonder (although
the head is up forward). I owe him a response with some photos of my
Long Dory and Diablo projects, and will ask at that time if I may
photograph and post on this forum the AS34 drawing - it's copyrighted
material after all.
Also mentioned in the letter was that the big project which delayed all
the commissions so long has resulted in a long technical report for the
customer (the USN), and is to be published in the journal NAVSEA. The
editor, however, has requested that the report be rewritten to make it
more understandable to the typical reader (some 90,000 or so), so they
have to start all over on a new report for this journal. The original
work will supposedly be available on the journal's website, which I was
unable to locate in a quick search just now.
Since it's unclassified and PB&F have been talking to their friends
about it, according to Susanne, I think it's probably OK to tell you
that the project is a proposal for a craft that can land around 100
tons (or two MBTs) quickly (I think 20 knots was the number I heard)
from something like 100 miles offshore using "modest" power (about 2400
hp) for low cost and efficiency, and return to sea. Apparently the
current fast landing craft in use don't have the load capacity needed
(I think these are mostly air cushion vehicles). Some of the competing
proposals apparently couldn't make the "modest" requirement, the speed,
the range requirement (specifically getting all the way back), or had
other problems, and that's about the time PB&F got called in, from what
I can intuit. PCB writes that the proposal has apparently survived a
gruelling review process, and I recall from our last phone conversation
that a good number of high-brow N.A.s were involved in this scrutiny.
I'm pretty sure this is not a plywood "instant" boat.
Still more news. PCB reviewed the last sketches I sent them two or
three years ago and has concurred with our ideas for the interior
layout of #668 Auriga! He says he'll draw it that way unless some
obvious technical issue comes up. He's also agreed to have a go at
revising the sheerline for a more sweeping profile. I'll also ask in
my response if I can photograph and post some of the existing proposal
drawings for Auriga here - I know you folks would love to see what
we've beem cooking up for our retirement home.
Lastly, my website is back on line after switching providers, if anyone
cares about that. Since I'm limited in physical activity for a couple
of weeks, expect some FastBrick updates (finally!) in the near future.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
was off elk hunting. More accurately, I was aggravating a tear of my
left patellar tendon while carrying a rifle in an area of Colorado
where elk are known to live, and had to come home early and empty
handed.
Inside this tube was a letter from PCB in response to mine of early
September. That was itself a followup to his phone call on Labor Day
weekend. During that call, he had offered some small boat plans as
compensation for the long delay in our commission. The blue tube
contained the plans for both Cartoon 40 (which he obviously forgot he
had already sent me back in Sept), and to my joy also those for #471
Summer Ease. I hope to build Cartoon 40 this winter, assuming I am
able to bend my knee past 90 degrees ever again. I don't know if I'll
ever get around to a big project like #471, but it sure would make a
fine camp cruiser for someplace like Voyageurs Nat. Park. PCB writes
that Gary Blankenship's Cartoon 40 is the only one he knows of, and
that to his knowledge #471 has never been built, as the man who
commissioned the design apparently died before building her.
PCB also included some reprints of the various WB and MAIB articles on
BW and BWII, saying in his letter that he considers BWII a good
alternative to #471 for camping and his best design ever. Strong words
from a man with nearly 700 numbered designs. He mentioned that BWII
plans outsell BW by 15 to 1.
But wait, that's not all the tube contained! Also promised during the
phone call from Sept. was a sketch of AS34, and there it was! The
drawing is labeled as the "final concept" and shows both plan view and
cross section of the interior, with enough other information to see
that it's a cat yawl. A good description might be that it's a cross
between Yonder and Le Cabotin. Sharpie hull with surfaces like Le
Cabotin, rig, doghouse, and interior layout more like Yonder (although
the head is up forward). I owe him a response with some photos of my
Long Dory and Diablo projects, and will ask at that time if I may
photograph and post on this forum the AS34 drawing - it's copyrighted
material after all.
Also mentioned in the letter was that the big project which delayed all
the commissions so long has resulted in a long technical report for the
customer (the USN), and is to be published in the journal NAVSEA. The
editor, however, has requested that the report be rewritten to make it
more understandable to the typical reader (some 90,000 or so), so they
have to start all over on a new report for this journal. The original
work will supposedly be available on the journal's website, which I was
unable to locate in a quick search just now.
Since it's unclassified and PB&F have been talking to their friends
about it, according to Susanne, I think it's probably OK to tell you
that the project is a proposal for a craft that can land around 100
tons (or two MBTs) quickly (I think 20 knots was the number I heard)
from something like 100 miles offshore using "modest" power (about 2400
hp) for low cost and efficiency, and return to sea. Apparently the
current fast landing craft in use don't have the load capacity needed
(I think these are mostly air cushion vehicles). Some of the competing
proposals apparently couldn't make the "modest" requirement, the speed,
the range requirement (specifically getting all the way back), or had
other problems, and that's about the time PB&F got called in, from what
I can intuit. PCB writes that the proposal has apparently survived a
gruelling review process, and I recall from our last phone conversation
that a good number of high-brow N.A.s were involved in this scrutiny.
I'm pretty sure this is not a plywood "instant" boat.
Still more news. PCB reviewed the last sketches I sent them two or
three years ago and has concurred with our ideas for the interior
layout of #668 Auriga! He says he'll draw it that way unless some
obvious technical issue comes up. He's also agreed to have a go at
revising the sheerline for a more sweeping profile. I'll also ask in
my response if I can photograph and post some of the existing proposal
drawings for Auriga here - I know you folks would love to see what
we've beem cooking up for our retirement home.
Lastly, my website is back on line after switching providers, if anyone
cares about that. Since I'm limited in physical activity for a couple
of weeks, expect some FastBrick updates (finally!) in the near future.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm