Re: Illinois model in 3D
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Clyde Wisner <clydewis@...> wrote:
Illinois is complete, has a design number, and a price for the plans
quoted in the MAIB article.
Don Schultz
>it
> Did PCB ever finish the Puffer design? It was a concept when I saw
> MAIB. ClydeTo my knowledge no.
>
Illinois is complete, has a design number, and a price for the plans
quoted in the MAIB article.
Don Schultz
Did PCB ever finish the Puffer design? It was a concept when I saw it
MAIB. Clyde
donschultz8275 wrote:
MAIB. Clyde
donschultz8275 wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Kristine Ben When it wasin MAIB, it was a conceptnett <femmpaws@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking at the Illinois as well and for me she
> > should be more like 14 to 16 feet of beam. Then put a
> > 24 inch deep by 30 inch wide or maybe a 48 inch wide
> > box keel under her, and while you are at it call the
> > redi-mix guys, and pour the thing full of concret or
> > mostly full for ballast. So you are going to draw 36
> > inchs of water maybe.. But you will be able to put 18
> > to 20 inch props under her and are not likely to ding
> > them when you beach her.
> >
>
> Really a different boat for a different mission than PCB had in mind
> for Illinois . Perhaps the 2nd concept PCB suggested in the 2 or 3
> articles in MAIB is closer to your vision. It is called Puffer (not
> Bell's Puffer, a real passage maker), another plywood mobile
> houseboat powered by a 50hp outboard.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/BIG%20BOLGER%20BOATS/
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/BIG%20BOLGER%20BOATS/>
>
> Hmmmm, thinking again, Bell's Puffer is much of what Krissie
> describes in her post, and is steel. Also, there is Shady Lady
> (appropriate for Krissie?), and, the closest of all may be Salvage1
> because of its twin screws.
>
>
Don I have looked at the Puffer and I do like the
layout and the whole idea of the boat... I would feel
better with a small diesel in it for power. Yanmar no
longer inports their diesel outboards into the states
it a shame too they were a good unit.
Hmmm That could be a do able thing. A used outdrive
and a short coupled diesel... I missed out on a Volvo
diesel outdrive package the whole thing for 500
dollors.
Blessings Krissie
--- donschultz8275 <donschultz@...> wrote:
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
layout and the whole idea of the boat... I would feel
better with a small diesel in it for power. Yanmar no
longer inports their diesel outboards into the states
it a shame too they were a good unit.
Hmmm That could be a do able thing. A used outdrive
and a short coupled diesel... I missed out on a Volvo
diesel outdrive package the whole thing for 500
dollors.
Blessings Krissie
--- donschultz8275 <donschultz@...> wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennetthttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/BIG%20BOLGER%20BOATS/
> <femmpaws@...> wrote:
> >
> > I was looking at the Illinois as well and for me
> she
> > should be more like 14 to 16 feet of beam. Then
> put a
> > 24 inch deep by 30 inch wide or maybe a 48 inch
> wide
> > box keel under her, and while you are at it call
> the
> > redi-mix guys, and pour the thing full of concret
> or
> > mostly full for ballast. So you are going to draw
> 36
> > inchs of water maybe.. But you will be able to put
> 18
> > to 20 inch props under her and are not likely to
> ding
> > them when you beach her.
> >
>
>
> Really a different boat for a different mission than
> PCB had in mind
> for Illinois . Perhaps the 2nd concept PCB
> suggested in the 2 or 3
> articles in MAIB is closer to your vision. It is
> called Puffer (not
> Bell's Puffer, a real passage maker), another
> plywood mobile
> houseboat powered by a 50hp outboard.
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
> Hmmmm, thinking again, Bell's Puffer is much of what
> Krissie
> describes in her post, and is steel. Also, there is
> Shady Lady
> (appropriate for Krissie?), and, the closest of all
> may be Salvage1
> because of its twin screws.
>
>
Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
for Illinois . Perhaps the 2nd concept PCB suggested in the 2 or 3
articles in MAIB is closer to your vision. It is called Puffer (not
Bell's Puffer, a real passage maker), another plywood mobile
houseboat powered by a 50hp outboard.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/BIG%20BOLGER%20BOATS/
Hmmmm, thinking again, Bell's Puffer is much of what Krissie
describes in her post, and is steel. Also, there is Shady Lady
(appropriate for Krissie?), and, the closest of all may be Salvage1
because of its twin screws.
>Really a different boat for a different mission than PCB had in mind
> I was looking at the Illinois as well and for me she
> should be more like 14 to 16 feet of beam. Then put a
> 24 inch deep by 30 inch wide or maybe a 48 inch wide
> box keel under her, and while you are at it call the
> redi-mix guys, and pour the thing full of concret or
> mostly full for ballast. So you are going to draw 36
> inchs of water maybe.. But you will be able to put 18
> to 20 inch props under her and are not likely to ding
> them when you beach her.
>
for Illinois . Perhaps the 2nd concept PCB suggested in the 2 or 3
articles in MAIB is closer to your vision. It is called Puffer (not
Bell's Puffer, a real passage maker), another plywood mobile
houseboat powered by a 50hp outboard.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bolger2/files/BIG%20BOLGER%20BOATS/
Hmmmm, thinking again, Bell's Puffer is much of what Krissie
describes in her post, and is steel. Also, there is Shady Lady
(appropriate for Krissie?), and, the closest of all may be Salvage1
because of its twin screws.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Michal" <michal@...> wrote:
boat porn. Shame on you!
;)
Stefan
> "Kensington", here yet another very inspirational picture how tohttp://www.classicyacht.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=5&pos=-60Illinoise
> approach the final design for Illinois:
>
>
>This site, with all the albums of the different fleets, is hardcore
boat porn. Shame on you!
;)
Stefan
She shouldn't oil can. However, being flat side-to-side a keel helps
her track straight and not crab sideways when she has a wind hitting
her on the side. Probably helps it turn as well.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@...>
wrote:
her track straight and not crab sideways when she has a wind hitting
her on the side. Probably helps it turn as well.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@...>
wrote:
>shouldn't
> --- Clyde Wisner <clydewis@> wrote:
> > I just looked in Cartoons at Illinois, and I don't see a lot
> > of rocker though.
>
> There might be not much, but there is, along the whole length.
> Definitely more than that it could be built on a flat floor, unless
> you build her bottom up.
>
> > Stefan, I think rocker and slow, efficient, low power cruising
> > go hand in hand, as in "sea of peas" thinking.
>
> That hull is not SOP.
> And with a Draft-to-Beam of the hull of 1:10 to 1:20, there
> be much wake anyway. Means: no rocker needed from drag point ofview.
>
> > Also the built up keel might prevent "oil canning" in the bottom.
>
> Well, a thick enough ply-foam-ply sandwich should do that, too.
>
> Stefan
>
A really narrow beam to length ratio allows you to go above hull
speed without actually planing. Also a really long narow boat can
handle rougher water than a shorter boat of the same width or a wider
boat of the same length.
speed without actually planing. Also a really long narow boat can
handle rougher water than a shorter boat of the same width or a wider
boat of the same length.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kristine Bennett <femmpaws@...> wrote:
>
> I was looking at the Illinois as well and for me she
> should be more like 14 to 16 feet of beam. Then put a
> 24 inch deep by 30 inch wide or maybe a 48 inch wide
> box keel under her, and while you are at it call the
> redi-mix guys, and pour the thing full of concret or
> mostly full for ballast. So you are going to draw 36
> inchs of water maybe.. But you will be able to put 18
> to 20 inch props under her and are not likely to ding
> them when you beach her.
>
> The keel would also give you a place for tankage. I
> know this changes the idea for the boat BUT it does
> give you some power options for powering her. Hull
> speed is something around 10 Kts so a pair of 35 to 40
> Hp diesels should push it around 7 to 8 Kts. on about
> 3.5 to 4 Gal an hour or maybe less.
>
> You would also have a better sea boat and could cross
> Puget Sound most any day and not wait till it was flat
> clam to do so.
>
> Just my ideas and maybe .00000000002 dollars worth ;)
>
> Blessings Krissie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________
> We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
> (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
>http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
>
--- Clyde Wisner <clydewis@...> wrote:
Definitely more than that it could be built on a flat floor, unless
you build her bottom up.
And with a Draft-to-Beam of the hull of 1:10 to 1:20, there shouldn't
be much wake anyway. Means: no rocker needed from drag point of view.
Stefan
> I just looked in Cartoons at Illinois, and I don't see a lotThere might be not much, but there is, along the whole length.
> of rocker though.
Definitely more than that it could be built on a flat floor, unless
you build her bottom up.
> Stefan, I think rocker and slow, efficient, low power cruisingThat hull is not SOP.
> go hand in hand, as in "sea of peas" thinking.
And with a Draft-to-Beam of the hull of 1:10 to 1:20, there shouldn't
be much wake anyway. Means: no rocker needed from drag point of view.
> Also the built up keel might prevent "oil canning" in the bottom.Well, a thick enough ply-foam-ply sandwich should do that, too.
Stefan
I was looking at the Illinois as well and for me she
should be more like 14 to 16 feet of beam. Then put a
24 inch deep by 30 inch wide or maybe a 48 inch wide
box keel under her, and while you are at it call the
redi-mix guys, and pour the thing full of concret or
mostly full for ballast. So you are going to draw 36
inchs of water maybe.. But you will be able to put 18
to 20 inch props under her and are not likely to ding
them when you beach her.
The keel would also give you a place for tankage. I
know this changes the idea for the boat BUT it does
give you some power options for powering her. Hull
speed is something around 10 Kts so a pair of 35 to 40
Hp diesels should push it around 7 to 8 Kts. on about
3.5 to 4 Gal an hour or maybe less.
You would also have a better sea boat and could cross
Puget Sound most any day and not wait till it was flat
clam to do so.
Just my ideas and maybe .00000000002 dollars worth ;)
Blessings Krissie
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
should be more like 14 to 16 feet of beam. Then put a
24 inch deep by 30 inch wide or maybe a 48 inch wide
box keel under her, and while you are at it call the
redi-mix guys, and pour the thing full of concret or
mostly full for ballast. So you are going to draw 36
inchs of water maybe.. But you will be able to put 18
to 20 inch props under her and are not likely to ding
them when you beach her.
The keel would also give you a place for tankage. I
know this changes the idea for the boat BUT it does
give you some power options for powering her. Hull
speed is something around 10 Kts so a pair of 35 to 40
Hp diesels should push it around 7 to 8 Kts. on about
3.5 to 4 Gal an hour or maybe less.
You would also have a better sea boat and could cross
Puget Sound most any day and not wait till it was flat
clam to do so.
Just my ideas and maybe .00000000002 dollars worth ;)
Blessings Krissie
____________________________________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donschultz8275" <donschultz@...> wrote:
approach the final design for Illinois:
http://www.classicyacht.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=5&pos=-60Illinoise
>"Kensington", here yet another very inspirational picture how to
> Bruce,
>
> I posted a pic of a yacht named Allure that I think is the "styling"
> inspiration for Illinois. It is in Bolger2/files/big
> bolger/allure.jpg.
>
> I'm curious about the graphed curve overlayed on the profile of
> Illinois that you have posted on your site. What does it indicate?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Don Schultz
>
approach the final design for Illinois:
http://www.classicyacht.org/gallery/displayimage.php?album=random&cat=5&pos=-60Illinoise
I just looked in Cartoons at Illinois, and I don't see a lot of rocker
though. Clyde
Clyde Wisner wrote:
though. Clyde
Clyde Wisner wrote:
> Stefan, I think rocker and slow, efficient, low power cruising go hand[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> in hand, as in "sea of peas" thinking. Also the built up keel might
> prevent "oil canning" in the bottom. Clyde
>
> Stefan Probst wrote:
>
> > OK, some thoughts about how I might build her, or to be more precise,
> > a boat that comes close, in a very limited building space:
> >
> > First, that shoe. Bolger says that it is intended to provide enough
> > structural strength so that the boat can be "beached" on uneven ground.
> > Without that 5.5" shoe, the draft would be about 1'.
> >
> > Next, the rocker. Bolger says that she is not intended for fast
> > cruising. I don't see then why the rocker is needed. The 52' Wyoming
> > obviously doesn't have much rocker. If the Illinois would be done in a
> > ve
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Messages in this topic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/52346;_ylc=X3oDMTM2cDJhbzl2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExOTQzNjkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzkxBG1zZ0lkAzUyNDAxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE2OTY3NjQyMQR0cGNJZAM1MjM0Ng-->
> (31) Reply (via web post)
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxZGtyNjkxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExOTQzNjkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzkxBG1zZ0lkAzUyNDAxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE2OTY3NjQyMQ--?act=reply&messageNum=52401>
> | Start a new topic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMWw1amVxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExOTQzNjkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzkxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE2OTY3NjQyMQ-->
>
> Messages
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOWJrOTh2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExOTQzNjkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzkxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE2OTY3NjQyMQ-->
> | Files
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOHRhNGc1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExOTQzNjkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzkxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2ZpbGVzBHN0aW1lAzExNjk2NzY0MjE->
> | Photos
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMGNmdTQ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzExOTQzNjkEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDY1NzkxBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Bob3QEc3RpbWUDMTE2OTY3NjQyMQ-->
> |
Stefan, I think rocker and slow, efficient, low power cruising go hand
in hand, as in "sea of peas" thinking. Also the built up keel might
prevent "oil canning" in the bottom. Clyde
Stefan Probst wrote:
in hand, as in "sea of peas" thinking. Also the built up keel might
prevent "oil canning" in the bottom. Clyde
Stefan Probst wrote:
> OK, some thoughts about how I might build her, or to be more precise,[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> a boat that comes close, in a very limited building space:
>
> First, that shoe. Bolger says that it is intended to provide enough
> structural strength so that the boat can be "beached" on uneven ground.
> Without that 5.5" shoe, the draft would be about 1'.
>
> Next, the rocker. Bolger says that she is not intended for fast
> cruising. I don't see then why the rocker is needed. The 52' Wyoming
> obviously doesn't have much rocker. If the Illinois would be done in a
> ve
>
>
>
>
On 1/24/07, Chris Crandall <crandall@...> wrote:
personality. Buheler would no doubt much prefer solid D.Fir lumber
over plywood because of its superior rot resistance.
Indeed, planking a 63 footer entirely with 2x lumber would be a casual
thing on a Buheler boat.
Think of the spring of the planked sides of Burgundy, or the
watertight planked bottoms of Jessie Cooper and Fiddler II . I also
would use plenty of galvanized nails to hold the bottom together, not
depending just on the glue.
> I wouldn't personally do that. One cannot reliably seal 2x8's withI guess I was just revealing the 'George Buheler' side of my
> epoxy and fiberglass, and if one does, the dynamic instability of the
> 2x8 compared to the plywood would very likely cause a failure of the
> joint between the "hull" and the "shoe". That, and the bending moment
> of a 2x8 is nothing like 3/4" plywood, and so it would have trouble
> taking the right shape.
personality. Buheler would no doubt much prefer solid D.Fir lumber
over plywood because of its superior rot resistance.
Indeed, planking a 63 footer entirely with 2x lumber would be a casual
thing on a Buheler boat.
Think of the spring of the planked sides of Burgundy, or the
watertight planked bottoms of Jessie Cooper and Fiddler II . I also
would use plenty of galvanized nails to hold the bottom together, not
depending just on the glue.
>"Bruce Hallman":I wouldn't personally do that. One cannot reliably seal 2x8's with
>
> That works out to less than 125 sheets of 1/2" plywood in the bottom.
>
> Personally, I would ask to use fewer sheets of 3/4" (or even 1")
> plywood building the bottom, and 2x8 lumber for the shoe.
epoxy and fiberglass, and if one does, the dynamic instability of the
2x8 compared to the plywood would very likely cause a failure of the
joint between the "hull" and the "shoe". That, and the bending moment
of a 2x8 is nothing like 3/4" plywood, and so it would have trouble
taking the right shape.
>the shoe would use many 4x8x1/2" sheets.Scaling from the drawing, I see the shoe to be 48" wide. Again,
scaling and guessing, the bottom is 2 inches thick (0-10 ft wide), =
70 sheets w/staggered joints, and the shoe an additional 3 1/2" thick,
55 sheets.
That works out to less than 125 sheets of 1/2" plywood in the bottom.
Personally, I would ask to use fewer sheets of 3/4" (or even 1")
plywood building the bottom, and 2x8 lumber for the shoe.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
shoe would use many 4x8x1/2" sheets. As you suggested before, it is
possible the sides are a double layer of 1/2" at least part way up
from the chine.
Don Schultz
>Never tried to figure out where they all go. I can only suggest the
> Doing the math, I don't see how that many sheets could be consumed in
> a 63 foot length.
>
shoe would use many 4x8x1/2" sheets. As you suggested before, it is
possible the sides are a double layer of 1/2" at least part way up
from the chine.
Don Schultz
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
Well written. I can't imagine a better summary of Illinois as
designed. If used as PCB describes, a houseboat with limited mobility
moving only in the best conditions, one could consider getting the
windows from Home Depot, and take advantage of the screens during the
warm weather. BUT, IMO the key to survivability of this boat if
modified (repowered) for cruising would be the construction of the
windows along the sides, hatches, and the wheelhouse.
Thinking about Illinois on the Great Lakes, a poor choice by her
skipper could end badly, with the big boat getting broached and rolled
in heavy seas. She may well float even when flooded, but recovery
from that condition would be very difficult.
Bolger suggest a pair of 70lb anchors would do the job in hurricane
conditions.
Don Schultz
> I do see a lot of standard 'Bolger signature elements' in theIllinois
> design. Similar to other Bolger designs (like Birdwatcher), theheavy
> bottom would serve as ballast compared to the light buoyant topsides,of
> keeping her stability curve vigorously upright. The watertight box
> the entire hull would provide astonishing buoyancy. The thick shoelink'
> serves as a 'beam' to hold the hull together should she span from
> crest to crest on waves (which I imagine is the structural 'weak
> of such a long narrow design).-----------
>
> For storm survivability, key is her ability to swing around an anchor
> and present her narrow 'low profile' shape to the wind.
>
Well written. I can't imagine a better summary of Illinois as
designed. If used as PCB describes, a houseboat with limited mobility
moving only in the best conditions, one could consider getting the
windows from Home Depot, and take advantage of the screens during the
warm weather. BUT, IMO the key to survivability of this boat if
modified (repowered) for cruising would be the construction of the
windows along the sides, hatches, and the wheelhouse.
Thinking about Illinois on the Great Lakes, a poor choice by her
skipper could end badly, with the big boat getting broached and rolled
in heavy seas. She may well float even when flooded, but recovery
from that condition would be very difficult.
Bolger suggest a pair of 70lb anchors would do the job in hurricane
conditions.
Don Schultz
> Can Freeship give you a stability curve for her? I know it's not aFreeship provides hydraulic calculations, but I haven't used those
> bluewater boat by any stretch of the imagination, but I wonder what
> she'd be able to stand up to if you got caught in a storm, took a
> breaking wave broadside, etc. At what angle of heel does she go over
> for good?
features of the program. And, to calculate stability, you need to
input material weight density and 'scantlings', which at this point I
can only guess.
I do see a lot of standard 'Bolger signature elements' in the Illinois
design. Similar to other Bolger designs (like Birdwatcher), the heavy
bottom would serve as ballast compared to the light buoyant topsides,
keeping her stability curve vigorously upright. The watertight box of
the entire hull would provide astonishing buoyancy. The thick shoe
serves as a 'beam' to hold the hull together should she span from
crest to crest on waves (which I imagine is the structural 'weak link'
of such a long narrow design).
For storm survivability, key is her ability to swing around an anchor
and present her narrow 'low profile' shape to the wind.
OK, some thoughts about how I might build her, or to be more precise,
a boat that comes close, in a very limited building space:
First, that shoe. Bolger says that it is intended to provide enough
structural strength so that the boat can be "beached" on uneven ground.
Without that 5.5" shoe, the draft would be about 1'.
Next, the rocker. Bolger says that she is not intended for fast
cruising. I don't see then why the rocker is needed. The 52' Wyoming
obviously doesn't have much rocker. If the Illinois would be done in a
version without rocker, the draft of the hull might be around 6" only.
With those considerations, I would build barge modules, on flat
workshop floor space, with Ply-Foam-Ply bottom, and 1' high sides:
Bow (7 to 8'), Guest Stateroom (8'), Head-Module (8', i.e. 2 extra
feet to give the Guest Statroom its own small 2' WC), Bridge Module
(8'), Galley (8'), Saloon (12' or 2 modules 8'), Aft Storage (6' or
8'), Aft Propulsion (6' to 8'). Actually, I would keep her same width
from about midship to aft for easier building (and easy
extendability), and give the aft module some rocker so that the
transom just "kisses" the water (as it is usually called). Those
modules would be 10' wide (or even 12'), and 6 to 12' long, but only
about 1' high, so rolled to their sides can be transported in a small
van or an open utility trailer from the workshop to the "wharf", i.e.
some water, not too deep, and well protected. There the barge modules
would be assembled and then the sides and ceiling/deck would be
mounted onto those modules like the walls of a prefab house.
Now, how to mount/assemble those barge modules?
First, I'd laminate 6 to 9" high skids. Two or three of them. With a
6" hull we'd still have max. the draft of the original Illinois. If it
is not possible to do full-length skids, either because no workshop is
available, or they cannot be transported, then make two or three
vertical layers (i.e. side-by-side), each piece as long as possible,
and screw them together at the assembly site with some horizontal
bolts. In fixed distances, say each 2', I'd laminate vertical bolts
(machine screws) into those skids in such a way, that they protrude a
couple of inches on top of the skids. The barge modules would have
corresponding holes in the bottom ply layer, and slightly larger holes
(for nut and tool) in the foam and top ply. Waterproofing would be
with a washer and by filling the foam hole with silicone construction
glue. Since the skids are of wood, they will float, and assembly
should be pretty easy in knee to waist deep water.
Besides those bottom skids, I would use extra strong rubrails at the
top of the barge modules and on the top of the side walls (i.e. beams
onto which the ceiling/deck is mounted) to interconnect the assembly.
Extra strong doesn't mean very thick, but very high, since this
provides the stiffness. Again, if full length not possible, then two
or three boards layered. Mounting to the barge modules (and side
walls) by horizontal bolts.
Hope this is understandable.
Basically a TIMSinois... ;)
Cheers,
Stefan
a boat that comes close, in a very limited building space:
First, that shoe. Bolger says that it is intended to provide enough
structural strength so that the boat can be "beached" on uneven ground.
Without that 5.5" shoe, the draft would be about 1'.
Next, the rocker. Bolger says that she is not intended for fast
cruising. I don't see then why the rocker is needed. The 52' Wyoming
obviously doesn't have much rocker. If the Illinois would be done in a
version without rocker, the draft of the hull might be around 6" only.
With those considerations, I would build barge modules, on flat
workshop floor space, with Ply-Foam-Ply bottom, and 1' high sides:
Bow (7 to 8'), Guest Stateroom (8'), Head-Module (8', i.e. 2 extra
feet to give the Guest Statroom its own small 2' WC), Bridge Module
(8'), Galley (8'), Saloon (12' or 2 modules 8'), Aft Storage (6' or
8'), Aft Propulsion (6' to 8'). Actually, I would keep her same width
from about midship to aft for easier building (and easy
extendability), and give the aft module some rocker so that the
transom just "kisses" the water (as it is usually called). Those
modules would be 10' wide (or even 12'), and 6 to 12' long, but only
about 1' high, so rolled to their sides can be transported in a small
van or an open utility trailer from the workshop to the "wharf", i.e.
some water, not too deep, and well protected. There the barge modules
would be assembled and then the sides and ceiling/deck would be
mounted onto those modules like the walls of a prefab house.
Now, how to mount/assemble those barge modules?
First, I'd laminate 6 to 9" high skids. Two or three of them. With a
6" hull we'd still have max. the draft of the original Illinois. If it
is not possible to do full-length skids, either because no workshop is
available, or they cannot be transported, then make two or three
vertical layers (i.e. side-by-side), each piece as long as possible,
and screw them together at the assembly site with some horizontal
bolts. In fixed distances, say each 2', I'd laminate vertical bolts
(machine screws) into those skids in such a way, that they protrude a
couple of inches on top of the skids. The barge modules would have
corresponding holes in the bottom ply layer, and slightly larger holes
(for nut and tool) in the foam and top ply. Waterproofing would be
with a washer and by filling the foam hole with silicone construction
glue. Since the skids are of wood, they will float, and assembly
should be pretty easy in knee to waist deep water.
Besides those bottom skids, I would use extra strong rubrails at the
top of the barge modules and on the top of the side walls (i.e. beams
onto which the ceiling/deck is mounted) to interconnect the assembly.
Extra strong doesn't mean very thick, but very high, since this
provides the stiffness. Again, if full length not possible, then two
or three boards layered. Mounting to the barge modules (and side
walls) by horizontal bolts.
Hope this is understandable.
Basically a TIMSinois... ;)
Cheers,
Stefan
Bruce --
I find myself dreaming of Illinois quite often -- though my wife tells
me that in the final stages of finishing Cormorant, I could plainly be
heard from several miles away saying, "I'll never build another
*@#&*#$% big boat again in my life!" But oh, what a marvelous
retirement home Illinois would be!
Can Freeship give you a stability curve for her? I know it's not a
bluewater boat by any stretch of the imagination, but I wonder what
she'd be able to stand up to if you got caught in a storm, took a
breaking wave broadside, etc. At what angle of heel does she go over
for good?
All best,
Garth
I find myself dreaming of Illinois quite often -- though my wife tells
me that in the final stages of finishing Cormorant, I could plainly be
heard from several miles away saying, "I'll never build another
*@#&*#$% big boat again in my life!" But oh, what a marvelous
retirement home Illinois would be!
Can Freeship give you a stability curve for her? I know it's not a
bluewater boat by any stretch of the imagination, but I wonder what
she'd be able to stand up to if you got caught in a storm, took a
breaking wave broadside, etc. At what angle of heel does she go over
for good?
All best,
Garth
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> > "If constructed all solid ply as proposed, vs. ply-foam-ply laminate
> > in places, she needs on the order of 450 4x8 sheets of 1/2" plywood.
>
> Doing the math, I don't see how that many sheets could be consumed in
> a 63 foot length.
>
> > like the shoe on the work skiffs the plans for which are sold by
> > Payson.
>
> Also a heck of a lot like the 31 foot bottom of the Topaz which I just
> built, which is 2 1/2" thick.
>
> I can envision the Illinois as a 2x scale up a Topaz hull. The
> assembly of the Topaz bottom was super fast and straight forward.
>
> "If constructed all solid ply as proposed, vs. ply-foam-ply laminateDoing the math, I don't see how that many sheets could be consumed in
> in places, she needs on the order of 450 4x8 sheets of 1/2" plywood.
a 63 foot length.
> like the shoe on the work skiffs the plans for which are sold byAlso a heck of a lot like the 31 foot bottom of the Topaz which I just
> Payson.
built, which is 2 1/2" thick.
I can envision the Illinois as a 2x scale up a Topaz hull. The
assembly of the Topaz bottom was super fast and straight forward.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John and Kathy Trussell"
<jtrussell2@...> wrote:
Plywood is an inherently expensive material. As far as I am
concerned, the only really good reason to use it is that plywood
boats can live on trailers and not dry out. Since a 65 ' boat is not
trailerable with anything short of a Peterbuilt, it is difficult to
justify plywood construction. Just my opinion.
Paw, I can really see having the basic hull done in steel. BWAOM has
that 100' Sharpie motorsailer/freighter which is a very similar
profile done in steel. Some details of the way the steel panels meet
are the same in Lion Paw and the freighter.
Turning Illinois in to a "real cruiser" would require getting the
prop deeper in the water, thus giving up some of the shallow draft.
PCB advised against trying to use her that way.
<jtrussell2@...> wrote:
>to pay a yard to build her in steel and then finish it off yourself?
> Perhaps it would be a lot quicker, cheaper, and all around better
Plywood is an inherently expensive material. As far as I am
concerned, the only really good reason to use it is that plywood
boats can live on trailers and not dry out. Since a 65 ' boat is not
trailerable with anything short of a Peterbuilt, it is difficult to
justify plywood construction. Just my opinion.
>Yeah steel makes much sense. Especially looking at the pics of Lion
> JohnT
Paw, I can really see having the basic hull done in steel. BWAOM has
that 100' Sharpie motorsailer/freighter which is a very similar
profile done in steel. Some details of the way the steel panels meet
are the same in Lion Paw and the freighter.
Turning Illinois in to a "real cruiser" would require getting the
prop deeper in the water, thus giving up some of the shallow draft.
PCB advised against trying to use her that way.
Here is a quote from PCB's essay.
"If constructed all solid ply as proposed, vs. ply-foam-ply laminate
in places, she needs on the order of 450 4x8 sheets of 1/2" plywood.
The effort is comparable to building a small house, the foundation on
which she's erected being the 5-1/2" thick center bottom."
Based on this, I believe the "center bottom" is 5.5" thick. It is
like the shoe on the work skiffs the plans for which are sold by
Payson.
I imagine the outer layer being layed and assembled with Payson butt
joints and fully glassed. I'd then flip it right side up, and shim it
to the correct curve, and would start gluing staggered layers of 1/2"
ply down on the outer layer. I'd do one or two w' epoxy and then
would be tempted to go to roofing cement for the intermediate layers.
Once the glue for the shoe is solid, I would build up from there,
periodically checking level and other dimensions to be sure the shoe
hasn't moved, or settled.
One huge pile of plywood.
"If constructed all solid ply as proposed, vs. ply-foam-ply laminate
in places, she needs on the order of 450 4x8 sheets of 1/2" plywood.
The effort is comparable to building a small house, the foundation on
which she's erected being the 5-1/2" thick center bottom."
Based on this, I believe the "center bottom" is 5.5" thick. It is
like the shoe on the work skiffs the plans for which are sold by
Payson.
I imagine the outer layer being layed and assembled with Payson butt
joints and fully glassed. I'd then flip it right side up, and shim it
to the correct curve, and would start gluing staggered layers of 1/2"
ply down on the outer layer. I'd do one or two w' epoxy and then
would be tempted to go to roofing cement for the intermediate layers.
Once the glue for the shoe is solid, I would build up from there,
periodically checking level and other dimensions to be sure the shoe
hasn't moved, or settled.
One huge pile of plywood.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Michal" <michal@...> wrote:
also one alternative as freeware ed. of application called Alibre
(Xpress). It also exists as full ver. for 1/5 of the $olidWorks
package.. Certainly a must try at least for the smaller boat
projects. Also, they have a Rhino3d plugin.
http://www.alibre.com/xpress/software/alibre-design-xpress.asp
"Alibre Design Xpress Features
-Part Modeling
* Intelligent sketching with automatic constraint capture (i.e.,
horizontal, vertical, perpendicular, etc.)
* Feature-based modeling with parametric history
* Powerful feature creation tools: sweeps, lofts, helix, holes, etc.
* Mirroring and pattern creation
-Assembly Modeling
* Assembly constraints: mate, orient, align, etc. with
auto-constrain mode
* Exploded views
* Interference checking, measurement tools, physical property
calculator
-2D Drawing and Detailing
* Automated generation of 2D drawings of parts and assemblies
* Bi-directional associativity - change the model and the drawing
updates and vice versa
* ISO and ANSI standard templates
* Orthographic views including front, top, right and iso with
hidden line display
* GD&T symbols
* Redline markups
"
--
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10551
>For the 3D parametric solid modeling/assembly stage is there
>
> Ok, so lets share some findings about setting up
> this whole digital workflow for our real & dream ships.
> Both articles basically complement each other:
>
>
> 1/ "Our CAD Design Stream" - very informative summary by Kasten Marine
> Desgin, inc.http://www.kastenmarine.com/design_stream.htm
>
> --
>
> 2/ Boatdesign.net forum:
>http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13873&page=2
>
> " Raggi_Thor Raggi_Thor is offline
> Nav.arch/Designer/Builder
> Location: Trondheim, NORWAY
>
> I think many people prefer to use the software they know.
> Sonadora has invested several man years in SolidWorks, so that's a
> tool he know very well.
>
> I have used and programmed AutoCAD since 1987, so that's my tool for
> efficient drawing production.
>
> If you are familiar with AutoCAD, then Rhino is very easy to use.
> While it's not parametric, it's still easier to edit a hull with
> control points in Rhino than in Inventor (as I know fairly well).
>
> I think SolidWorks is pretty much like Inventor.
> If you want to go parametric, and have automated drawing creation,
> BOM, FEA etc, etc, then Alibre Design is a low cost alternative to
> SolidWorks and Inventor. (I sell Alibre so I am not neutral :-)
>
> One tried and tested solution that actually work for many designers
> and builders of medium sised boats (10 to 50 meter?) is:
>
> 1) Hull design in any program (fastShip, FreeShip, Prolines, etc, etc)
> 2) Export to Iges or 3DM
> 3) Refinement in Rhino, fairing if necesery, rendering for sales
>
> 4a) For small boats, export 2D curves to AutoCAD or BricsCad for
> working drawings and cnc production.
>
> 4b) For larger boats with more than 100 parts or so, import to
> ShipConstructor to make complete 3D solids model for weight
> calculation, part numberings, cut lists, assembly shop drawings,
> nesting, cnc preparations.
> __________________
> Regards, Kvedja, mvh,
> Ragnar Thor Mikkelsen
> www.MBOATS.no "
>
also one alternative as freeware ed. of application called Alibre
(Xpress). It also exists as full ver. for 1/5 of the $olidWorks
package.. Certainly a must try at least for the smaller boat
projects. Also, they have a Rhino3d plugin.
http://www.alibre.com/xpress/software/alibre-design-xpress.asp
"Alibre Design Xpress Features
-Part Modeling
* Intelligent sketching with automatic constraint capture (i.e.,
horizontal, vertical, perpendicular, etc.)
* Feature-based modeling with parametric history
* Powerful feature creation tools: sweeps, lofts, helix, holes, etc.
* Mirroring and pattern creation
-Assembly Modeling
* Assembly constraints: mate, orient, align, etc. with
auto-constrain mode
* Exploded views
* Interference checking, measurement tools, physical property
calculator
-2D Drawing and Detailing
* Automated generation of 2D drawings of parts and assemblies
* Bi-directional associativity - change the model and the drawing
updates and vice versa
* ISO and ANSI standard templates
* Orthographic views including front, top, right and iso with
hidden line display
* GD&T symbols
* Redline markups
"
--
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10551
Perhaps it would be a lot quicker, cheaper, and all around better to pay a yard to build her in steel and then finish it off yourself? Plywood is an inherently expensive material. As far as I am concerned, the only really good reason to use it is that plywood boats can live on trailers and not dry out. Since a 65 ' boat is not trailerable with anything short of a Peterbuilt, it is difficult to justify plywood construction. Just my opinion.
JohnT
JohnT
----- Original Message -----
From: Michal
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:02 PM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Illinois model in 3D
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> I am trying to read PCB's mind as to the scantlings of Illinois.
>
> The sides, I presume are two layers of vertically oriented 1/2"
> plywood. The bottom, my guess is triple, staggered 3/4" plywood with
> a 3" shoe, a double layer of '2by' lumber. Top deck, is 1/2" ply.
>
> sides: 60 sheets
> bottom: 42 sheets
> top: 16 sheets
> fitout: 36 sheets
> =============
> 150 x $30 = $4,500
> Lumber = 4,000 bf @ $0.75 = $3,000
> Epoxy 110 gallons @ $45 = $5,000
> Cloth 300 yards @ $5 = $1,500
> Motors $7,500
> Misc. $20,000
> Total...about $45K materials
>
> labor about 10hrs per sheet of plywood, 1,500 hrs???
>
.."Epoxy 110 gallons".. :@ )
Thanks for this overview, I'm definately of the opinion that
in boat projects of this magnitude a complete digital workflow is a
must. And also vaccum approach for glassing that giant hull.
You can save big $ or many months perhaps even years of life by
firstly neatly everything planing within CAD system. Then
followed by making foam/wood scale model 1:5-1:10 (kiddies doll
house), further CAD model refining incl. solid objects of individual
components, and finally CNC machined patterns and actual construction.
This will cut the build time perhaps by 50% and price at least
by 1/3. Also one can venture into more "luxury" interior options.
For instance, some parts of the ship like salon or master bedroom
could be from 3x layers of CNC routed plywood panels with ornaments etc..
You can hire few workers to help with such a project,
and it can go ultra fast, they will mostly follow the detailed
plans (if they are bullet proof). In any case few years of detailed
brainstorming in front of CAD and other tools would be necessary prior
the construction phase. I can see the manual entitled *[My 63' Ship],
400 pages A3, 3 x DVD..
Best
M.
The only problems is that the software for such integrated
workflow is extremely expensive (Maxsurf). So in the end it will be
some cheap AutoCAD clone at least with nesting and CNC/router export
capabilities etc. which are usually hard to learn and not that much
reliable.
---
*[My 65' Ship] - for the UL helipad and aft swiming platform ver.
A similar detailed planing approach would great:
http://www.classicwoodenboatplans.com/about_the_plans.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.17.6/646 - Release Date: 1/23/2007
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
You cannot imagine how that feels from up here,where it has to be
colder then say, -40C , before the press whines about it,the T.V.news
show pictures of its' effects and we,the natives,start to bitch about
it :-) but it sure does make us worship summer when it gets here!
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan, with pleasent thoughts for all Southern Bolger nuts
while I continue to pray for a hastening of the dreaded greenhouse
effect..darnit...I wanna see palm trees along the shores of the mighty
St.Lawrence in my life time :-D
> My imagination of winter cold, is the Sacramento Delta, where aBruce,
> freezing cold spell is headline news.
You cannot imagine how that feels from up here,where it has to be
colder then say, -40C , before the press whines about it,the T.V.news
show pictures of its' effects and we,the natives,start to bitch about
it :-) but it sure does make us worship summer when it gets here!
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan, with pleasent thoughts for all Southern Bolger nuts
while I continue to pray for a hastening of the dreaded greenhouse
effect..darnit...I wanna see palm trees along the shores of the mighty
St.Lawrence in my life time :-D
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Michal" <michal@...> wrote:
I too happen to find ILLINOIS very pleasing aesthetically,right
from the get go.I'm equally aware of the Aussie itterations, from
DuckFlats, of a few Bolger designs.
Was it my last paragraph(quoted above), which I should have
perhaps made clearer, that suggested to you otherwise? What I was
intending simply is that a boat of this scale/size deserves the best
materials and effort otherwise it will come out looking and
being "cheaper"(poor quality) then its' size would suggest.Can you
imagine ILLINOIS built with construction grade plywood,using spruce
2x4's for framing stock,window caulking compound for all the
joints,sheet rock screws for permanent fastners and some house paint
applied straight onto the plywood? Sure, you would end up with a boat
looking just like the plans show and not too expensive either BUT
incredibly short lived despite its great size and potential as a
permanent residence,possibly difficult to insure and harder still to
sell.
In other words, I am very fond of trying to get some of
Bolgers' "boxes" to look better then any real "box" has the right
to :-) This approach catches the eyes of passer-bys who are always
surprised that it is made out of plywood.An awakening of sorts which
sometimes inspires them to think,"Hell, I can build a boat like that
too!"
It is a joy to spread the fun around by letting others have the
chance to experience the tremendous pleasures I've known/discovered
from building a few Bolger boats. I'm a big fan of His :-D
I think we are now back on the same page :-)
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
> >of
> > I could never justify to myself expending so much time,money and
> > effort on a project only to have it end up looking like it must
> > cost less then it actually did.Hi Michal,
> Peter,
> I'm of the opinion that Illinois could be in the end aesthetically
> very pleasing ship, just look how ausies refined the Bolger design
> a bit further in the Mundoo river cruiser series.
I too happen to find ILLINOIS very pleasing aesthetically,right
from the get go.I'm equally aware of the Aussie itterations, from
DuckFlats, of a few Bolger designs.
Was it my last paragraph(quoted above), which I should have
perhaps made clearer, that suggested to you otherwise? What I was
intending simply is that a boat of this scale/size deserves the best
materials and effort otherwise it will come out looking and
being "cheaper"(poor quality) then its' size would suggest.Can you
imagine ILLINOIS built with construction grade plywood,using spruce
2x4's for framing stock,window caulking compound for all the
joints,sheet rock screws for permanent fastners and some house paint
applied straight onto the plywood? Sure, you would end up with a boat
looking just like the plans show and not too expensive either BUT
incredibly short lived despite its great size and potential as a
permanent residence,possibly difficult to insure and harder still to
sell.
In other words, I am very fond of trying to get some of
Bolgers' "boxes" to look better then any real "box" has the right
to :-) This approach catches the eyes of passer-bys who are always
surprised that it is made out of plywood.An awakening of sorts which
sometimes inspires them to think,"Hell, I can build a boat like that
too!"
It is a joy to spread the fun around by letting others have the
chance to experience the tremendous pleasures I've known/discovered
from building a few Bolger boats. I'm a big fan of His :-D
I think we are now back on the same page :-)
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan
Ok, so lets share some findings about setting up
this whole digital workflow for our real & dream ships.
Both articles basically complement each other:
1/ "Our CAD Design Stream" - very informative summary by Kasten Marine
Desgin, inc.http://www.kastenmarine.com/design_stream.htm
--
2/ Boatdesign.net forum:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13873&page=2
" Raggi_Thor Raggi_Thor is offline
Nav.arch/Designer/Builder
Location: Trondheim, NORWAY
I think many people prefer to use the software they know.
Sonadora has invested several man years in SolidWorks, so that's a
tool he know very well.
I have used and programmed AutoCAD since 1987, so that's my tool for
efficient drawing production.
If you are familiar with AutoCAD, then Rhino is very easy to use.
While it's not parametric, it's still easier to edit a hull with
control points in Rhino than in Inventor (as I know fairly well).
I think SolidWorks is pretty much like Inventor.
If you want to go parametric, and have automated drawing creation,
BOM, FEA etc, etc, then Alibre Design is a low cost alternative to
SolidWorks and Inventor. (I sell Alibre so I am not neutral :-)
One tried and tested solution that actually work for many designers
and builders of medium sised boats (10 to 50 meter?) is:
1) Hull design in any program (fastShip, FreeShip, Prolines, etc, etc)
2) Export to Iges or 3DM
3) Refinement in Rhino, fairing if necesery, rendering for sales
4a) For small boats, export 2D curves to AutoCAD or BricsCad for
working drawings and cnc production.
4b) For larger boats with more than 100 parts or so, import to
ShipConstructor to make complete 3D solids model for weight
calculation, part numberings, cut lists, assembly shop drawings,
nesting, cnc preparations.
__________________
Regards, Kvedja, mvh,
Ragnar Thor Mikkelsen
www.MBOATS.no "
this whole digital workflow for our real & dream ships.
Both articles basically complement each other:
1/ "Our CAD Design Stream" - very informative summary by Kasten Marine
Desgin, inc.http://www.kastenmarine.com/design_stream.htm
--
2/ Boatdesign.net forum:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13873&page=2
" Raggi_Thor Raggi_Thor is offline
Nav.arch/Designer/Builder
Location: Trondheim, NORWAY
I think many people prefer to use the software they know.
Sonadora has invested several man years in SolidWorks, so that's a
tool he know very well.
I have used and programmed AutoCAD since 1987, so that's my tool for
efficient drawing production.
If you are familiar with AutoCAD, then Rhino is very easy to use.
While it's not parametric, it's still easier to edit a hull with
control points in Rhino than in Inventor (as I know fairly well).
I think SolidWorks is pretty much like Inventor.
If you want to go parametric, and have automated drawing creation,
BOM, FEA etc, etc, then Alibre Design is a low cost alternative to
SolidWorks and Inventor. (I sell Alibre so I am not neutral :-)
One tried and tested solution that actually work for many designers
and builders of medium sised boats (10 to 50 meter?) is:
1) Hull design in any program (fastShip, FreeShip, Prolines, etc, etc)
2) Export to Iges or 3DM
3) Refinement in Rhino, fairing if necesery, rendering for sales
4a) For small boats, export 2D curves to AutoCAD or BricsCad for
working drawings and cnc production.
4b) For larger boats with more than 100 parts or so, import to
ShipConstructor to make complete 3D solids model for weight
calculation, part numberings, cut lists, assembly shop drawings,
nesting, cnc preparations.
__________________
Regards, Kvedja, mvh,
Ragnar Thor Mikkelsen
www.MBOATS.no "
> Ah Bruce....the eternal optimist with 1500 hrs est. in labour :-)Yes, I am optimistic. Though, I have built a few boats so I don't
> Multiple layers of same dimension plwood(1/2") everywhere(including
> massive shoe,not unlike like Windermeres "only 4 layers of 1/2"(PCB))
> and then bulkheads and frames and then furniture.It adds up rather
> quickly,
feel uninformed. :)
1,500 hrs, is a rough box estimate, not a with a lot of fit-out. I
figure a boat like that is a live-aboard platform. Later, with a
Homelite generator, the boat is effectively a floating workshop space,
and a you would endlessly tinker-away on the fit-out. I imagine
building a small boat or two on the top deck.
I gu-estimate triple layered 3/4" for the bottom, the massive shoe
(which scales on the drawing to be 5 or 6 inch thick) could be built
up from triple, or quadruple, layering of 2x8 lumber bonded up with
'George Buehler' asphalt 'roofing tar' mastic perhaps. Using an air
powered nailer w/galvanized nails.
I see seven massive, but do-able, bulkhead frames.
Mostly, Illinois is a faux-boat. A sheltered water floating house box
that looks like a boat. Windows of vinyl frame prefab double pane
float glass, and cheap prefab cabinet work from Home Depot.
Yes, a construction site type forklift would be needed, and some day
laborer at times, certainly. She is too big to cheaply truck. I
imagine a building site by a waterway, next to a jerry-rigged quay for
the launch, or perhaps a $2,000 hydraulic rental crane.
My imagination of winter cold, is the Sacramento Delta, where a
freezing cold spell is headline news.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <peterlenihan@...> wrote:
I'm of the opinion that Illinois could be in the end aesthetically
very pleasing ship, just look how ausies refined the Bolger design
a bit further in the Mundoo river cruiser series.
http://www.duckflatwoodenboats.com/mainpages/mundoo.php
Illinois is great for the purpose it has been designed.
I'd preferably put the money in ocean capable cat but that might
change, people get older and "hausbot" river living seems to be
interesting alternative.
You are right that this would be a psycho project for one individual,
and as mentioned in previous post, I'd suggest to anybody
take your time, design all the small details, spit out the CNC
patterns, hire a crew of several factotums plus one or two foremans
and you get the big boat without ruining your life and within
reasonable budget..
M.
>Peter,
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@> wrote:
> >
> > > I thought somewhere in the write up on the Illinois he mentions
> over 400
> > > sheets of plywood.
> > >
> > > HJ
> >
> > I recall that number too, but at 63 feet long, I cannot imagine how
> > you could use more than six sheets for each lineal foot of the boat.
> >
> > Assuming a four sided box, 63f x 8ft x 10ft ...would have a surface
> > area of 2,200 SF. Using 1/2" ply, 400 sheets would imply an
> average
> > plywood thickness of 3" thick all around.
>
>
>
> Ah Bruce....the eternal optimist with 1500 hrs est. in labour :-)
> Multiple layers of same dimension plwood(1/2") everywhere(including
> massive shoe,not unlike like Windermeres "only 4 layers of 1/2"(PCB))
> and then bulkheads and frames and then furniture.It adds up rather
> quickly,even if we optimistically give ourselves 10% for waste.....
> For example, with Windermere, I have gone the "full four season
> capable boat" as allowed on the plans,ie;fully insulated, and this
> results in building the boat almost twice as the foam needs to be
> covered.Mind you,not to the same scantlings as the hull, but covered
> nevertheless.Very VERY time consuming as you are working to a
> different standard in finish not needed in the relatively rougher
> hull assembly and in progressively tighter confines.
>
> Unlike smaller scaled boats, big boats can be physically daunting and
> draining at times for a solo builder,thus time for reflection on how
> one is going to mount the next building step has to be allowed
> for.Combined with the unusual length of time these critters can
> consume,especially for the average working Joe with a life outside of
> boats, it is easy to see how important maintaining a very high level
> of determination is cruxial to the success of such large projects.
>
> Furthermore,depending on your physical local, one may not have the
> required space for such a big boat nor,for that matter, neighbours
> with the sense of humour to put up with such a scale of racket a boat
> like this will produce during its gestation period.And so, one
> sometimes has to locate a suitable site,as close to home as
> practical.This can be both a blessing and a curse. A blessing since
> it furthers our progress along the path to our dream but a curse as
> there will be times when out-of-sight-out-of-mind will give rise to
> lots of wonderful occassions where we may just want to do something
> else :-)
>
> At any rate, I would be inclined to trust PCB&F's estimates as bare
> MINIMUMS both for manhours and materials.....at least that has been
> my experience to date.....and to recall that THEY have a tendancy to
> go for bare bones work-boat finishes and stylings :-)
>
> I could never justify to myself expending so much time,money and
> effort on a project only to have it end up looking like it must of
> cost less then it actually did. Some folks call me crazy too! :-D
>
>
> My usual .02$ worth.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Peter Lenihan,who has been called many things but thankfuly never
> late for supper, from along the shores of the mighty
> St.Lawrence......
>
> >
>
I'm of the opinion that Illinois could be in the end aesthetically
very pleasing ship, just look how ausies refined the Bolger design
a bit further in the Mundoo river cruiser series.
http://www.duckflatwoodenboats.com/mainpages/mundoo.php
Illinois is great for the purpose it has been designed.
I'd preferably put the money in ocean capable cat but that might
change, people get older and "hausbot" river living seems to be
interesting alternative.
You are right that this would be a psycho project for one individual,
and as mentioned in previous post, I'd suggest to anybody
take your time, design all the small details, spit out the CNC
patterns, hire a crew of several factotums plus one or two foremans
and you get the big boat without ruining your life and within
reasonable budget..
M.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
Multiple layers of same dimension plwood(1/2") everywhere(including
massive shoe,not unlike like Windermeres "only 4 layers of 1/2"(PCB))
and then bulkheads and frames and then furniture.It adds up rather
quickly,even if we optimistically give ourselves 10% for waste.....
For example, with Windermere, I have gone the "full four season
capable boat" as allowed on the plans,ie;fully insulated, and this
results in building the boat almost twice as the foam needs to be
covered.Mind you,not to the same scantlings as the hull, but covered
nevertheless.Very VERY time consuming as you are working to a
different standard in finish not needed in the relatively rougher
hull assembly and in progressively tighter confines.
Unlike smaller scaled boats, big boats can be physically daunting and
draining at times for a solo builder,thus time for reflection on how
one is going to mount the next building step has to be allowed
for.Combined with the unusual length of time these critters can
consume,especially for the average working Joe with a life outside of
boats, it is easy to see how important maintaining a very high level
of determination is cruxial to the success of such large projects.
Furthermore,depending on your physical local, one may not have the
required space for such a big boat nor,for that matter, neighbours
with the sense of humour to put up with such a scale of racket a boat
like this will produce during its gestation period.And so, one
sometimes has to locate a suitable site,as close to home as
practical.This can be both a blessing and a curse. A blessing since
it furthers our progress along the path to our dream but a curse as
there will be times when out-of-sight-out-of-mind will give rise to
lots of wonderful occassions where we may just want to do something
else :-)
At any rate, I would be inclined to trust PCB&F's estimates as bare
MINIMUMS both for manhours and materials.....at least that has been
my experience to date.....and to recall that THEY have a tendancy to
go for bare bones work-boat finishes and stylings :-)
I could never justify to myself expending so much time,money and
effort on a project only to have it end up looking like it must of
cost less then it actually did. Some folks call me crazy too! :-D
My usual .02$ worth.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,who has been called many things but thankfuly never
late for supper, from along the shores of the mighty
St.Lawrence......
>over 400
> > I thought somewhere in the write up on the Illinois he mentions
> > sheets of plywood.average
> >
> > HJ
>
> I recall that number too, but at 63 feet long, I cannot imagine how
> you could use more than six sheets for each lineal foot of the boat.
>
> Assuming a four sided box, 63f x 8ft x 10ft ...would have a surface
> area of 2,200 SF. Using 1/2" ply, 400 sheets would imply an
> plywood thickness of 3" thick all around.Ah Bruce....the eternal optimist with 1500 hrs est. in labour :-)
Multiple layers of same dimension plwood(1/2") everywhere(including
massive shoe,not unlike like Windermeres "only 4 layers of 1/2"(PCB))
and then bulkheads and frames and then furniture.It adds up rather
quickly,even if we optimistically give ourselves 10% for waste.....
For example, with Windermere, I have gone the "full four season
capable boat" as allowed on the plans,ie;fully insulated, and this
results in building the boat almost twice as the foam needs to be
covered.Mind you,not to the same scantlings as the hull, but covered
nevertheless.Very VERY time consuming as you are working to a
different standard in finish not needed in the relatively rougher
hull assembly and in progressively tighter confines.
Unlike smaller scaled boats, big boats can be physically daunting and
draining at times for a solo builder,thus time for reflection on how
one is going to mount the next building step has to be allowed
for.Combined with the unusual length of time these critters can
consume,especially for the average working Joe with a life outside of
boats, it is easy to see how important maintaining a very high level
of determination is cruxial to the success of such large projects.
Furthermore,depending on your physical local, one may not have the
required space for such a big boat nor,for that matter, neighbours
with the sense of humour to put up with such a scale of racket a boat
like this will produce during its gestation period.And so, one
sometimes has to locate a suitable site,as close to home as
practical.This can be both a blessing and a curse. A blessing since
it furthers our progress along the path to our dream but a curse as
there will be times when out-of-sight-out-of-mind will give rise to
lots of wonderful occassions where we may just want to do something
else :-)
At any rate, I would be inclined to trust PCB&F's estimates as bare
MINIMUMS both for manhours and materials.....at least that has been
my experience to date.....and to recall that THEY have a tendancy to
go for bare bones work-boat finishes and stylings :-)
I could never justify to myself expending so much time,money and
effort on a project only to have it end up looking like it must of
cost less then it actually did. Some folks call me crazy too! :-D
My usual .02$ worth.
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan,who has been called many things but thankfuly never
late for supper, from along the shores of the mighty
St.Lawrence......
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
Thanks for this overview, I'm definately of the opinion that
in boat projects of this magnitude a complete digital workflow is a
must. And also vaccum approach for glassing that giant hull.
You can save big $ or many months perhaps even years of life by
firstly neatly everything planing within CAD system. Then
followed by making foam/wood scale model 1:5-1:10 (kiddies doll
house), further CAD model refining incl. solid objects of individual
components, and finally CNC machined patterns and actual construction.
This will cut the build time perhaps by 50% and price at least
by 1/3. Also one can venture into more "luxury" interior options.
For instance, some parts of the ship like salon or master bedroom
could be from 3x layers of CNC routed plywood panels with ornaments etc..
You can hire few workers to help with such a project,
and it can go ultra fast, they will mostly follow the detailed
plans (if they are bullet proof). In any case few years of detailed
brainstorming in front of CAD and other tools would be necessary prior
the construction phase. I can see the manual entitled *[My 63' Ship],
400 pages A3, 3 x DVD..
Best
M.
The only problems is that the software for such integrated
workflow is extremely expensive (Maxsurf). So in the end it will be
some cheap AutoCAD clone at least with nesting and CNC/router export
capabilities etc. which are usually hard to learn and not that much
reliable.
---
*[My 65' Ship] - for the UL helipad and aft swiming platform ver.
A similar detailed planing approach would great:
http://www.classicwoodenboatplans.com/about_the_plans.htm
>.."Epoxy 110 gallons".. :@ )
> I am trying to read PCB's mind as to the scantlings of Illinois.
>
> The sides, I presume are two layers of vertically oriented 1/2"
> plywood. The bottom, my guess is triple, staggered 3/4" plywood with
> a 3" shoe, a double layer of '2by' lumber. Top deck, is 1/2" ply.
>
> sides: 60 sheets
> bottom: 42 sheets
> top: 16 sheets
> fitout: 36 sheets
> =============
> 150 x $30 = $4,500
> Lumber = 4,000 bf @ $0.75 = $3,000
> Epoxy 110 gallons @ $45 = $5,000
> Cloth 300 yards @ $5 = $1,500
> Motors $7,500
> Misc. $20,000
> Total...about $45K materials
>
> labor about 10hrs per sheet of plywood, 1,500 hrs???
>
Thanks for this overview, I'm definately of the opinion that
in boat projects of this magnitude a complete digital workflow is a
must. And also vaccum approach for glassing that giant hull.
You can save big $ or many months perhaps even years of life by
firstly neatly everything planing within CAD system. Then
followed by making foam/wood scale model 1:5-1:10 (kiddies doll
house), further CAD model refining incl. solid objects of individual
components, and finally CNC machined patterns and actual construction.
This will cut the build time perhaps by 50% and price at least
by 1/3. Also one can venture into more "luxury" interior options.
For instance, some parts of the ship like salon or master bedroom
could be from 3x layers of CNC routed plywood panels with ornaments etc..
You can hire few workers to help with such a project,
and it can go ultra fast, they will mostly follow the detailed
plans (if they are bullet proof). In any case few years of detailed
brainstorming in front of CAD and other tools would be necessary prior
the construction phase. I can see the manual entitled *[My 63' Ship],
400 pages A3, 3 x DVD..
Best
M.
The only problems is that the software for such integrated
workflow is extremely expensive (Maxsurf). So in the end it will be
some cheap AutoCAD clone at least with nesting and CNC/router export
capabilities etc. which are usually hard to learn and not that much
reliable.
---
*[My 65' Ship] - for the UL helipad and aft swiming platform ver.
A similar detailed planing approach would great:
http://www.classicwoodenboatplans.com/about_the_plans.htm
> I thought somewhere in the write up on the Illinois he mentions over 400I recall that number too, but at 63 feet long, I cannot imagine how
> sheets of plywood.
>
> HJ
you could use more than six sheets for each lineal foot of the boat.
Assuming a four sided box, 63f x 8ft x 10ft ...would have a surface
area of 2,200 SF. Using 1/2" ply, 400 sheets would imply an average
plywood thickness of 3" thick all around.
I thought somewhere in the write up on the Illinois he mentions over 400
sheets of plywood.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
sheets of plywood.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
> I am trying to read PCB's mind as to the scantlings of Illinois.
>
> The sides, I presume are two layers of vertically oriented 1/2"
> plywood. The bottom, my guess is triple, staggered 3/4" plywood with
> a 3" shoe, a double layer of '2by' lumber. Top deck, is 1/2" ply.
>
> sides: 60 sheets
> bottom: 42 sheets
> top: 16 sheets
> fitout: 36 sheets
> =============
> 150 x $30 = $4,500
> Lumber = 4,000 bf @ $0.75 = $3,000
> Epoxy 110 gallons @ $45 = $5,000
> Cloth 300 yards @ $5 = $1,500
> Motors $7,500
> Misc. $20,000
> Total...about $45K materials
>
> labor about 10hrs per sheet of plywood, 1,500 hrs???
>
>
I am trying to read PCB's mind as to the scantlings of Illinois.
The sides, I presume are two layers of vertically oriented 1/2"
plywood. The bottom, my guess is triple, staggered 3/4" plywood with
a 3" shoe, a double layer of '2by' lumber. Top deck, is 1/2" ply.
sides: 60 sheets
bottom: 42 sheets
top: 16 sheets
fitout: 36 sheets
=============
150 x $30 = $4,500
Lumber = 4,000 bf @ $0.75 = $3,000
Epoxy 110 gallons @ $45 = $5,000
Cloth 300 yards @ $5 = $1,500
Motors $7,500
Misc. $20,000
Total...about $45K materials
labor about 10hrs per sheet of plywood, 1,500 hrs???
The sides, I presume are two layers of vertically oriented 1/2"
plywood. The bottom, my guess is triple, staggered 3/4" plywood with
a 3" shoe, a double layer of '2by' lumber. Top deck, is 1/2" ply.
sides: 60 sheets
bottom: 42 sheets
top: 16 sheets
fitout: 36 sheets
=============
150 x $30 = $4,500
Lumber = 4,000 bf @ $0.75 = $3,000
Epoxy 110 gallons @ $45 = $5,000
Cloth 300 yards @ $5 = $1,500
Motors $7,500
Misc. $20,000
Total...about $45K materials
labor about 10hrs per sheet of plywood, 1,500 hrs???
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Lenihan" <peterlenihan@...> wrote:
and for relatively sane pricing, so helipad and Illionis combo is
completely feasible! Perhaps if you beef up the aft shade structure
and enlarge it sideways, also add some steel components along the boat
to accomodate the weight and shocks from rough landings..
Moreover, the most refined UL kit nowadays, Mosquito has option with
floats, so you can for instace only take off from the cruiser's
helipad and then with crane pick it up and store there again for the
next flight.
Certainly this "lifestyle" is now possible, won't be that popular with
local authorities that <hausbot bums> are no living like ME sheikhs ha
:@ )
As far I know there are some legal problems with UL/experimental
helicopters in many parts of the EU, in the US & Canada it's much more
liberal in this area..
From the practial viewpoint, although, maintanace cost of these ULs
are small, the "parking lot" near water will for sure mean quicker
degradation of components and need for more regular service inspections..
But it could be a source of income as well, living aboard Illinois,
and working as a pilot for hire, inspecting fences and other land
structures around..
UL links:
Mosquito kits:
http://www.innovator.mosquito.net.nz/
Older kits and plans for UL/ligh helicopters:
http://www.vortechonline.com/
http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_eng/light.html
>Well, there are nowdays ultralight helicopter kits (less) 450kg weight
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Michal" <michal@> wrote:
> >> I know what might be missing and therefore enlarging this "box
> > effect". Illionis needs a collapsible swimming platform at the aft
> > :@ )
> >
> .....and a helipad :-D
>
> Peter Lenihan
>
and for relatively sane pricing, so helipad and Illionis combo is
completely feasible! Perhaps if you beef up the aft shade structure
and enlarge it sideways, also add some steel components along the boat
to accomodate the weight and shocks from rough landings..
Moreover, the most refined UL kit nowadays, Mosquito has option with
floats, so you can for instace only take off from the cruiser's
helipad and then with crane pick it up and store there again for the
next flight.
Certainly this "lifestyle" is now possible, won't be that popular with
local authorities that <hausbot bums> are no living like ME sheikhs ha
:@ )
As far I know there are some legal problems with UL/experimental
helicopters in many parts of the EU, in the US & Canada it's much more
liberal in this area..
From the practial viewpoint, although, maintanace cost of these ULs
are small, the "parking lot" near water will for sure mean quicker
degradation of components and need for more regular service inspections..
But it could be a source of income as well, living aboard Illinois,
and working as a pilot for hire, inspecting fences and other land
structures around..
UL links:
Mosquito kits:
http://www.innovator.mosquito.net.nz/
Older kits and plans for UL/ligh helicopters:
http://www.vortechonline.com/
http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_eng/light.html
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Michal" <michal@...> wrote:
Peter Lenihan
>> I know what might be missing and therefore enlarging this "box.....and a helipad :-D
> effect". Illionis needs a collapsible swimming platform at the aft
> :@ )
>
Peter Lenihan
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donschultz8275" <donschultz@...> wrote:
Love that picture you posted! I've always been rather fond of boats
from an era where a gentlemans cigar lounge or ladies tea room was
offered all the ways aft :-)
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan, thinking the curved line is the displacement curve or
areas of displacement, from along the wintery shores of the
St.Lawrence...........
>Don,
> Bruce,
>
> I posted a pic of a yacht named Allure that I think is the "styling"
> inspiration for Illinois. It is in Bolger2/files/big
> bolger/allure.jpg.
Love that picture you posted! I've always been rather fond of boats
from an era where a gentlemans cigar lounge or ladies tea room was
offered all the ways aft :-)
Sincerely,
Peter Lenihan, thinking the curved line is the displacement curve or
areas of displacement, from along the wintery shores of the
St.Lawrence...........
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
I know what might be missing and therefore enlarging this "box
effect". Illionis needs a collapsible swimming platform at the aft
:@ )
I'll try to render a "clay model" and perhaps some model incl.
realistic textures and more polys. Look what is possible, not claiming
I can reach such a fidelity at the moment though..
http://www.kerkythea.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1299&highlight=ship
Regards
M.
>That was fast! Thank you very much for this nice model.
>http://hallman.org/bolger/Illinois/Illinois.png
>
>http://hallman.org/bolger/Illinois/Illinois.fbm
>
> Such a box,
> could be built like a small house.
> In a moderate swell,
> I suspect the props would suck air.
>
I know what might be missing and therefore enlarging this "box
effect". Illionis needs a collapsible swimming platform at the aft
:@ )
I'll try to render a "clay model" and perhaps some model incl.
realistic textures and more polys. Look what is possible, not claiming
I can reach such a fidelity at the moment though..
http://www.kerkythea.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1299&highlight=ship
Regards
M.
Bruce,
I posted a pic of a yacht named Allure that I think is the "styling"
inspiration for Illinois. It is in Bolger2/files/big
bolger/allure.jpg.
I'm curious about the graphed curve overlayed on the profile of
Illinois that you have posted on your site. What does it indicate?
Thank you.
Don Schultz
I posted a pic of a yacht named Allure that I think is the "styling"
inspiration for Illinois. It is in Bolger2/files/big
bolger/allure.jpg.
I'm curious about the graphed curve overlayed on the profile of
Illinois that you have posted on your site. What does it indicate?
Thank you.
Don Schultz
http://hallman.org/bolger/Illinois/Illinois.png
http://hallman.org/bolger/Illinois/Illinois.fbm
Such a box,
could be built like a small house.
In a moderate swell,
I suspect the props would suck air.
http://hallman.org/bolger/Illinois/Illinois.fbm
Such a box,
could be built like a small house.
In a moderate swell,
I suspect the props would suck air.
Hi,
I'm just wondering as to whether anyone considered to make preliminary
3D model of Bolger's Illinois? There are some early success stories with
using the freeware FreeShip! for Bolger hulls and whole boats.
Since Illinoise perhaps remains for some time as an urealized
dinosaurus/dream that can't keep us from sketching up and visualize
some ideas..
Illinois:
http://hallman.org/bolger/Illinois/
Inspiration from vintage 40-65' (Arequipa is a good match)
http://classicyacht.org/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=31
FreeShip software and Bolger boats:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Freeship_HTandT_Group/message/361
I'm just wondering as to whether anyone considered to make preliminary
3D model of Bolger's Illinois? There are some early success stories with
using the freeware FreeShip! for Bolger hulls and whole boats.
Since Illinoise perhaps remains for some time as an urealized
dinosaurus/dream that can't keep us from sketching up and visualize
some ideas..
Illinois:
http://hallman.org/bolger/Illinois/
Inspiration from vintage 40-65' (Arequipa is a good match)
http://classicyacht.org/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=31
FreeShip software and Bolger boats:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Freeship_HTandT_Group/message/361