Re: NYMPH CUBED #527
Lateen sail handling? It don't take much. One way - Fishing Dhows of
Lake Victoria. Underminimalises (isthattheword?) even Bolger
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HJpGZtLiq5g
Graeme
Lake Victoria. Underminimalises (isthattheword?) even Bolger
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HJpGZtLiq5g
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> On 9/10/07, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Anybody got a step by step on reefing this? The reef points show
on the
> > scan I sent you but I can't work out a jiffy reefing system in
my head.
> >
> > HJ
>
> (Guessing...) It looks like you can reef by bunching up the lower
edge
> of the sail and then retie the mainsheet to the new clew point. I
am
> guessing you would also ease off of the halyard too, to lower the
sail
> center.) Also, I see two brail lines, which would allow you to
> collapse the head of the sail in a jiffy without fulling dropping
the
> yard (I am guessing, to allow you to douse sail during a squall or
> when hove to.)
>
Hi Jon,
thanks for putting me straight as the numbering process may have
changed lately with all that stuff happening at PB&F. You've
spurred me to go and read the preface of _Different Boats_ again.
It's one place where PCB spelled out his design process.
It may be that their practice hasn't changed though, and is still as
it was at that time. I misremembered about the number being given to
a finished design. It would seem that a number is given to a design
at the 4th stage when it is decided that it will/can be finished.
This is after working lines are drawn, and they have been measured
for offsets.
Two stages before that the design may be tagged with a name, and
those sketches and commentary are placed before the client. It is
here that the potential of the design is assessed as to whether it
is worthwhile continuing on with it. Have they got their wish? If
the design is speculative, without a client commission, then I guess
PCB stands in the shoes of the client.
Was Nymph Cubed more a speculative design, but with Dynamite Payson
in mind as the client though not committed? Was it ever really on
Dynamite's wish list? It may have passed this stage one way or
another to go on to the working drawings stage and get its
number "#527".
I think it must only have been a marketing thing that buried it. All
the practicalities would have been worked through in developing the
working drawings up to the numbering 4th stage. They got to that
stage, put it down for whatever reason, and as things worked out
never took it up again as they had perhaps wished to. If there's
working drawings it can be built - builder to loft panels, work out
own sheet use diagrams etc, and follow the tack and tape method if
no numbered building key completed.
Jon, FWIW, this may explain why those later unfinished designs
including, sadly, your own have been allocated a number.
Graeme
JUNE BUG wasn't PCB's wish to commemorate his 4th century of
numbered design; his WISH turned out worse than he had wished for
and it bugged him. And so, another wish, the elegant June Bug. I
think all his wishes may have come true that time.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "adventures_in_astrophotography"
<jon@...> wrote:
thanks for putting me straight as the numbering process may have
changed lately with all that stuff happening at PB&F. You've
spurred me to go and read the preface of _Different Boats_ again.
It's one place where PCB spelled out his design process.
It may be that their practice hasn't changed though, and is still as
it was at that time. I misremembered about the number being given to
a finished design. It would seem that a number is given to a design
at the 4th stage when it is decided that it will/can be finished.
This is after working lines are drawn, and they have been measured
for offsets.
Two stages before that the design may be tagged with a name, and
those sketches and commentary are placed before the client. It is
here that the potential of the design is assessed as to whether it
is worthwhile continuing on with it. Have they got their wish? If
the design is speculative, without a client commission, then I guess
PCB stands in the shoes of the client.
Was Nymph Cubed more a speculative design, but with Dynamite Payson
in mind as the client though not committed? Was it ever really on
Dynamite's wish list? It may have passed this stage one way or
another to go on to the working drawings stage and get its
number "#527".
I think it must only have been a marketing thing that buried it. All
the practicalities would have been worked through in developing the
working drawings up to the numbering 4th stage. They got to that
stage, put it down for whatever reason, and as things worked out
never took it up again as they had perhaps wished to. If there's
working drawings it can be built - builder to loft panels, work out
own sheet use diagrams etc, and follow the tack and tape method if
no numbered building key completed.
Jon, FWIW, this may explain why those later unfinished designs
including, sadly, your own have been allocated a number.
Graeme
JUNE BUG wasn't PCB's wish to commemorate his 4th century of
numbered design; his WISH turned out worse than he had wished for
and it bugged him. And so, another wish, the elegant June Bug. I
think all his wishes may have come true that time.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "adventures_in_astrophotography"
<jon@...> wrote:
> ..It hasn't been the case in the last several years that only
> finished....
> ....Susanne mentioned to me once something about when they decide
> to give design a number, but I only remember that being completed
> was not the criterion.
Hi Graeme,
...snip...
It hasn't been the case in the last several years that only finished
designs get numbers. A few I know of...
#666 Insolent 60 - unfinished and apparently off the table
#667 - unfinished and apparently superceded by AS34
#668 Auriga - unfinished
#669 Becky Thatcher is completed
I have no idea what's in the range between #670 and #678 Blackliner,
but I assume the navy landing craft, AS34, some powerboat they once
mentioned to me, and the various recent fishing boats must be in that
range or beyond.
Susanne mentioned to me once something about when they decide to give
design a number, but I only remember that being completed was not the
criterion.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
...snip...
> One confusion first up is about Nymph Cubed being an unfinished...snip...
> design. It has a number, and PCB has written a few times that he
> allocates a number to a design only when it is finished, and that he
> even attaches some importance to the actual number designated.
It hasn't been the case in the last several years that only finished
designs get numbers. A few I know of...
#666 Insolent 60 - unfinished and apparently off the table
#667 - unfinished and apparently superceded by AS34
#668 Auriga - unfinished
#669 Becky Thatcher is completed
I have no idea what's in the range between #670 and #678 Blackliner,
but I assume the navy landing craft, AS34, some powerboat they once
mentioned to me, and the various recent fishing boats must be in that
range or beyond.
Susanne mentioned to me once something about when they decide to give
design a number, but I only remember that being completed was not the
criterion.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
Ron - thanks for that additional insight into the designers'
thinking, and your own.
But. Hey, everyone loves OTTER, yet PCB wished he could get all the
plans back! So hold on folks, not so fast. PB&F can pull this
design, it has not been published, but ya's don't have to agree.
Why'd they bury it when most of the comment in their MAIB article is
positive?
It seems the boat is discounted due to some pragmatic finacial
considerations, but not written off on little cruising boat
principles. (There have been other examples of apparent
inconsistency where PCB/PB&F appear to indicate an idea, concept, or
principle at one place which contradicts another expressed
elsewhere.)
I'd say this boat would be wrongly perceived by many to be another
MICRO (one of PCB's self-stated "best efforts"). This likely
widespread conflation would have someone somewhere go beyond the
safe limits of the design, and not only suffer potentially serious
harm themselves, but inflict lasting harm on the reputation of the
designer. I'd say this is one main reason PCB&F are reticent about
endorsing the design fully. Further this design would be in direct
competition with the myriad of other prodution and self-build
designs for centreboard trailer-sailers at this size. This is why
they say it's good fun on paper, but not good value for real. They
don't say the boat is a dog; more of the opposite in fact. (They
recommend CAMPER... In the last several years or so CAMPER has been
recommended when people sought to purchase plans for various
designs.... it seems that there has been a desire to get more
Campers built.... ;-)
One confusion first up is about Nymph Cubed being an unfinished
design. It has a number, and PCB has written a few times that he
allocates a number to a design only when it is finished, and that he
even attaches some importance to the actual number designated. It
may be that some internal fittings design was considered necessary
to help amateur instant builders fit it out, but not done. Internal
fittings are also not done for many other instant type boats,
probably because they are mostly square and the fit out would be
relatively easy for the builder to contrive as compared to the
curves of NYMPH CUBED. It may be that they stopped for other reasons
before completing those final finnicky interior details, and also a
building key. Maybe Dynamite Payson thought it unsuited to market
as "instant" once he saw the finished design less internals. Seems
something similar happened to Storm Petrel... and maybe others...
They say "it began to look like a long job to finish after the first
rush of basic assembly"; not really an Instant Boat... They say "It
would have carried enough ballast to carry sail very well" - would
that have been the fiddly installation details of water ballast?
At first sight I don't like the bilgeboards. They take up internal
space, are fiddly to fit, and PCB also has had issues with them in
the past. They're so small that both have to be down at once when
beating. A single external 6sqft pivoting leeboard (ala Michalak)
would be better for a couple of reasons, and mostly it would not
interfere with the flow along the bilge panel that seems to be the
main reason for the twin bilgeboards.
This boat has measurements so close to Micro that it is really quite
striking: LOA, WLL, SA, Displacement, & etc. I think any bad points
of the design, apart from the marketing ones of the acceptance of
the lateen rig and the pram shape, have already been mentioned by
PB&F in regard to Micro - for example, it's been mentioned that
Micro has bow slap and the berths are damp from companion way drip...
This boat might skull ok. Several other rigs will suit, an outboard
can be fitted, the cabin can be stretched if necessary, the bottom
can be thicker... internals can be added... I'd love to see some
sectioned drawings.
What are those two circular things just off centreline in the aft
cockpit?
Cheers
Graeme
thinking, and your own.
But. Hey, everyone loves OTTER, yet PCB wished he could get all the
plans back! So hold on folks, not so fast. PB&F can pull this
design, it has not been published, but ya's don't have to agree.
Why'd they bury it when most of the comment in their MAIB article is
positive?
It seems the boat is discounted due to some pragmatic finacial
considerations, but not written off on little cruising boat
principles. (There have been other examples of apparent
inconsistency where PCB/PB&F appear to indicate an idea, concept, or
principle at one place which contradicts another expressed
elsewhere.)
I'd say this boat would be wrongly perceived by many to be another
MICRO (one of PCB's self-stated "best efforts"). This likely
widespread conflation would have someone somewhere go beyond the
safe limits of the design, and not only suffer potentially serious
harm themselves, but inflict lasting harm on the reputation of the
designer. I'd say this is one main reason PCB&F are reticent about
endorsing the design fully. Further this design would be in direct
competition with the myriad of other prodution and self-build
designs for centreboard trailer-sailers at this size. This is why
they say it's good fun on paper, but not good value for real. They
don't say the boat is a dog; more of the opposite in fact. (They
recommend CAMPER... In the last several years or so CAMPER has been
recommended when people sought to purchase plans for various
designs.... it seems that there has been a desire to get more
Campers built.... ;-)
One confusion first up is about Nymph Cubed being an unfinished
design. It has a number, and PCB has written a few times that he
allocates a number to a design only when it is finished, and that he
even attaches some importance to the actual number designated. It
may be that some internal fittings design was considered necessary
to help amateur instant builders fit it out, but not done. Internal
fittings are also not done for many other instant type boats,
probably because they are mostly square and the fit out would be
relatively easy for the builder to contrive as compared to the
curves of NYMPH CUBED. It may be that they stopped for other reasons
before completing those final finnicky interior details, and also a
building key. Maybe Dynamite Payson thought it unsuited to market
as "instant" once he saw the finished design less internals. Seems
something similar happened to Storm Petrel... and maybe others...
They say "it began to look like a long job to finish after the first
rush of basic assembly"; not really an Instant Boat... They say "It
would have carried enough ballast to carry sail very well" - would
that have been the fiddly installation details of water ballast?
At first sight I don't like the bilgeboards. They take up internal
space, are fiddly to fit, and PCB also has had issues with them in
the past. They're so small that both have to be down at once when
beating. A single external 6sqft pivoting leeboard (ala Michalak)
would be better for a couple of reasons, and mostly it would not
interfere with the flow along the bilge panel that seems to be the
main reason for the twin bilgeboards.
This boat has measurements so close to Micro that it is really quite
striking: LOA, WLL, SA, Displacement, & etc. I think any bad points
of the design, apart from the marketing ones of the acceptance of
the lateen rig and the pram shape, have already been mentioned by
PB&F in regard to Micro - for example, it's been mentioned that
Micro has bow slap and the berths are damp from companion way drip...
This boat might skull ok. Several other rigs will suit, an outboard
can be fitted, the cabin can be stretched if necessary, the bottom
can be thicker... internals can be added... I'd love to see some
sectioned drawings.
What are those two circular things just off centreline in the aft
cockpit?
Cheers
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Magen" <quahaug@...> wrote:
>
>
> > 6b. NYMPH CUBED #527 (was: "Re: 4 Person Dinghy")
> > Posted by: "graeme19121984" graeme19121984@...
> graeme19121984
> > Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:31 pm ((PDT))
>
> SNIP
> > The reference to REUBENS NYMPH #516 . . .and recent comments
about
> MICRO #422 . . .{came}just after I chased down what details I could
> about a MAIB reference I'd seen to this "NYMPH CUBED #527" design.
> > SNIP
> . . . it, . . .may be available as a plan by now (There's been
time for
> reflection . . .
> SNIP
>
> Graeme, et al . . .
> One of my first 'builds' was a RUBENS {NOTE - Was going to be a
> 'standard' Nymph, but thought better of it and exchanged the
plans}.
> Since then I've felt an affinity to the design form. Anyhow, when
I saw
> mention of the 'CUBED' version - my interest was peaked.
>
> When the MAIB reference was the only info available, I wrote to
Phil.
> The following is a quote from his response . . .
> ' I did quite a bit of work on a 2-to-1 scale-up of
Nymph . . .
> I eventually concluded that the design WASN'T good value in a
NUMBER
> of ways, and dropped it'
>
> He enclosed plans for an update of CAMPER # 640 {MAIB article
dated NOV'
> 95 -original design reference about FEB 1997}. ". . .a design that
I
> think does give value for an equivalent effort".
>
> This, I think, is the definitive answer.
>
> As this design had no resemblance to the 'Nymph hull form' plus
was not
> applicable to my 'type' of building, I dropped it as well.
>
>
> Regards,
> Ron Magen
> Backyard Boatshop
>
--- Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger_study_plans_only/files/Nymph
Cubed #527/
Stefan
>With Harry's friendly permission:
> Found it, scanned it if you want a copy, only one page.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger_study_plans_only/files/Nymph
Cubed #527/
Stefan
--- Clyde Wisner <clydewis@...> wrote:
it is not worth it. One reason being a small cabin, others an unusual
design (Pram bow), an unfamiliar rig etc.
Stefan
> anybody know what the plans cost? ClydeNo plans available, since Bolger didn't make a final design. He thinks
it is not worth it. One reason being a small cabin, others an unusual
design (Pram bow), an unfamiliar rig etc.
Stefan
Anybody got a step by step on reefing this? The reef points show on the
scan I sent you but I can't work out a jiffy reefing system in my head.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
scan I sent you but I can't work out a jiffy reefing system in my head.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/1356431720/
>
> shows an isometric rendering of Phil Bolger's Nymph Cubed. I sure like the
> Lateen rig, having used one similar on the Tortoise
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
On 9/10/07, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
of the sail and then retie the mainsheet to the new clew point. I am
guessing you would also ease off of the halyard too, to lower the sail
center.) Also, I see two brail lines, which would allow you to
collapse the head of the sail in a jiffy without fulling dropping the
yard (I am guessing, to allow you to douse sail during a squall or
when hove to.)
>(Guessing...) It looks like you can reef by bunching up the lower edge
>
> Anybody got a step by step on reefing this? The reef points show on the
> scan I sent you but I can't work out a jiffy reefing system in my head.
>
> HJ
of the sail and then retie the mainsheet to the new clew point. I am
guessing you would also ease off of the halyard too, to lower the sail
center.) Also, I see two brail lines, which would allow you to
collapse the head of the sail in a jiffy without fulling dropping the
yard (I am guessing, to allow you to douse sail during a squall or
when hove to.)
Right as usual, Bruce. I"ve been getting MAIB for a number of years and
I think I read them. I don't remember Nymph Cubed. It's a nice sized,
multichined sailer which I think will stand rougher water better. Does
anybody know what the plans cost? Clyde
Bruce Hallman wrote:
I think I read them. I don't remember Nymph Cubed. It's a nice sized,
multichined sailer which I think will stand rougher water better. Does
anybody know what the plans cost? Clyde
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/1356431720/[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> <http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/1356431720/>
>
> shows an isometric rendering of Phil Bolger's Nymph Cubed. I sure like the
> Lateen rig, having used one similar on the Tortoise
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/1356431720/
shows an isometric rendering of Phil Bolger's Nymph Cubed. I sure like the
Lateen rig, having used one similar on the Tortoise
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
shows an isometric rendering of Phil Bolger's Nymph Cubed. I sure like the
Lateen rig, having used one similar on the Tortoise
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 6b. NYMPH CUBED #527 (was: "Re: 4 Person Dinghy")graeme19121984
> Posted by: "graeme19121984"graeme19121984@...
> Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:31 pm ((PDT))SNIP
> The reference to REUBENS NYMPH #516 . . .and recent comments aboutMICRO #422 . . .{came}just after I chased down what details I could
about a MAIB reference I'd seen to this "NYMPH CUBED #527" design.
> SNIP. . . it, . . .may be available as a plan by now (There's been time for
reflection . . .
SNIP
Graeme, et al . . .
One of my first 'builds' was a RUBENS {NOTE - Was going to be a
'standard' Nymph, but thought better of it and exchanged the plans}.
Since then I've felt an affinity to the design form. Anyhow, when I saw
mention of the 'CUBED' version - my interest was peaked.
When the MAIB reference was the only info available, I wrote to Phil.
The following is a quote from his response . . .
' I did quite a bit of work on a 2-to-1 scale-up of Nymph . . .
I eventually concluded that the design WASN'T good value in a NUMBER
of ways, and dropped it'
He enclosed plans for an update of CAMPER # 640 {MAIB article dated NOV'
95 -original design reference about FEB 1997}. ". . .a design that I
think does give value for an equivalent effort".
This, I think, is the definitive answer.
As this design had no resemblance to the 'Nymph hull form' plus was not
applicable to my 'type' of building, I dropped it as well.
Regards,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
--- "adventures_in_astrophotography" <jon@...> wrote:
Cheers,
Stefan
> Same here. How about uploading it to the cartoons or study plansMay I second that motion?
> group files sections?
Cheers,
Stefan
> I would like to see the scan of the Nymph Cubed. Sounds like anintersting boat.
Same here. How about uploading it to the cartoons or study plans
group files sections?
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
I would like to see the scan of the Nymph Cubed. Sounds like an intersting boat.
Blessings Krissie
Harry James <welshman@...> wrote: Found it, scanned it if you want a copy, only one page.
HJ
graeme19121984 wrote:
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Blessings Krissie
Harry James <welshman@...> wrote: Found it, scanned it if you want a copy, only one page.
HJ
graeme19121984 wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "michaelmickjoseph"---------------------------------
>
>> <michaelmickjoseph@...> wrote:
>> ... I was hoping (as I cannot find a list of his plans) for a
>> design along the lines of Rubens Nymph only larger. A large pram
>> or punt. 12-14ft. If I hear "June Bug" I'm gonna skip over and
>> build the 15ft fishermans punt from Hannu...
>>
>
>
> The reference to REUBENS NYMPH #516 (the revised wider NYMPH #425),
> and recent comments about MICRO #422 "packing crate" design come
> coincidently just after I chased down what details I could about a
> MAIB reference I'd seen to this "NYMPH CUBED #527" design.
>
>
Building a website is a piece of cake.
Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Harry,
thanks very much. Could you please send it to my personal contact
email address as listed to the right?
Hmmm.... I thought more than one page would be needed, but then I
guess the articles are meant mainly to raise interest.
Thanks again. What do you think of it?
Graeme
thanks very much. Could you please send it to my personal contact
email address as listed to the right?
Hmmm.... I thought more than one page would be needed, but then I
guess the articles are meant mainly to raise interest.
Thanks again. What do you think of it?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
>
> Found it, scanned it if you want a copy, only one page.
>
> HJ
Found it, scanned it if you want a copy, only one page.
HJ
graeme19121984 wrote:
HJ
graeme19121984 wrote:
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "michaelmickjoseph"
>
>> <michaelmickjoseph@...> wrote:
>> ... I was hoping (as I cannot find a list of his plans) for a
>> design along the lines of Rubens Nymph only larger. A large pram
>> or punt. 12-14ft. If I hear "June Bug" I'm gonna skip over and
>> build the 15ft fishermans punt from Hannu...
>>
>
>
> The reference to REUBENS NYMPH #516 (the revised wider NYMPH #425),
> and recent comments about MICRO #422 "packing crate" design come
> coincidently just after I chased down what details I could about a
> MAIB reference I'd seen to this "NYMPH CUBED #527" design.
>
> Apparently an 11ft concept of a coastal cruising version of a NYMPH
> dinghy was also looked at. Who knows, it, or similar, may be
> available as a plan by now (There's been time for reflection - see
> below). My impression is that it was a smaller, more simply built
> iteration of the JAPANESE BEACHCRUISER #522 design with a cuddy,
> which would row better in the conventional manner.
>
> I haven't been able to find out much (= zilch) about NYMPH CUBED
> which is what I think may be a multi-chine seaworthy MICRO
> equivalent, or better. The MAIB article may have some discussion and
> drawings, but all I've found of that article deals with the 11-
> footer concept and not the 15'6" plan. I guess the PB&F article must
> be wide ranging, and cover all the ins and outs of what could be
> done with the NYMPH shape, and to what extent.
>
> Anyway, you're interested in a REUBENS NYMPH type pram of 12-14ft,
> so here's a bit about an 11-footer:
>
> I got only 2 archive search returns for the "527". An 11footer is
> mentioned with cuddy and coastal cruising ability in the pasted text
> below:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> "...Ask for MAIB Volume 18, #2; June 1, 2000. Or contact PB&F.
>
> "Nymph Cubed"
> Design #527
> 15'6" x 7'0" x 10'6"
> 1800 pounds displacement
>
>
> >From the text:
>
> We got out a set of lines and offsets and expansions of all the
> panels...
>
>
>> At this point we had begun to have misgivings about it. It had
>>
> begun to look
> like a long job to finish after the basic assembly; the old story,
> that a bare
> hull looks deceptively like a boat, that has trapped a lot of
> people, including
> some who should have known better. The ergonomics of the cuddy were
> unsatisfactory. And given the prejudice against pram bows in
> anything but
> tenders, and the unfamiliarity of the lateen rig, it seemed likely
> to be a hard
> sell regardless of its merits. We put it aside for reflection.
>
>> It would have been a highly respectable sailer of its class. No
>>
> boat eleven
> feet on the water line is going to sail very fast, but it would have
> felt
> spirited and been handy. It would have looked neat and ship-shape
> under sail
> since it was laid out in such a way that two people could sit on the
> weather
> side without spoiling her fore-and-aft trim. It would have carried
> enough
> ballast to carry sail very well. Its too low sided to have a
> seagoing range of
> stability, though the high bilge and low rig would have made it
> forgiving enough
> for fine weather coastal cruising. For that matter, much worse
> seaboats have
> crossed oceans, with luck and skill...
>
>
>> (>>>>
>>
>>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>
>> Noisy at anchor...
>> Dry out nicely upright on mud...
>> Only3/8" planking; steel shoe a good idea...
>>
>> There is no place to get really comfortable in the tiny cuddy and
>>
> it would be
> bound to be damp with drip from the hatch.
>
>> This is one of those designs that is good fun on paper, especially
>>
> for the
> very young, not good value in reality..."
>
> (pasted here from back at the thread "Re: 2x scale Nymph", Message
> #34894 of March 6, 2004, Mark. Originally pasted from MAIB, I think.)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is this 11-footer a possible contender from the Bolger stable that
> fits in a niche alongside Matt Layden's remarkably able and small
> SAND FLEA from the Florida Everglades Challenge earlier this year?
> I'd like a mighty little coastal cruiser like that, has PB&F
> others? Have PB&F "reflected"?
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
>
>
>
So, does anyone know more about this "cubed" design?
I "know" from that earlier post:
"Nymph Cubed"
Design #527
15'6" x 7'0" x 10'6"
1800 pounds displacement,
and further from the design list and MAIB index:
Pocket Cruiser - Ref: MAIB V#18No 2.
That's it! Wow, there must be more...
If the 11-footer concept is better, as claimed, than some other
boats that have crossed oceans then this 15'6" boat must be
something!
Is it like a pram cross between MICRO and CATFISH. Is it ballasted
or does it go with the light "no-lead melting" alternative of multi-
chine CATFISH/CHEBACCO.
Should that 10'6" read 1'6" for draft. Is that draft salient keel,
or rockered bottom only?
Is it like in-shore low-tension cruising CATFISH or off-shore no-
worries MICRO?
Has anyone seen it in the wild? Does anyone know what it looked like
from the MAIB article?
Wow, NYMPH... CUBED. Big lateen rig?
Graeme
I "know" from that earlier post:
"Nymph Cubed"
Design #527
15'6" x 7'0" x 10'6"
1800 pounds displacement,
and further from the design list and MAIB index:
Pocket Cruiser - Ref: MAIB V#18No 2.
That's it! Wow, there must be more...
If the 11-footer concept is better, as claimed, than some other
boats that have crossed oceans then this 15'6" boat must be
something!
Is it like a pram cross between MICRO and CATFISH. Is it ballasted
or does it go with the light "no-lead melting" alternative of multi-
chine CATFISH/CHEBACCO.
Should that 10'6" read 1'6" for draft. Is that draft salient keel,
or rockered bottom only?
Is it like in-shore low-tension cruising CATFISH or off-shore no-
worries MICRO?
Has anyone seen it in the wild? Does anyone know what it looked like
from the MAIB article?
Wow, NYMPH... CUBED. Big lateen rig?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "michaelmickjoseph"
and recent comments about MICRO #422 "packing crate" design come
coincidently just after I chased down what details I could about a
MAIB reference I'd seen to this "NYMPH CUBED #527" design.
Apparently an 11ft concept of a coastal cruising version of a NYMPH
dinghy was also looked at. Who knows, it, or similar, may be
available as a plan by now (There's been time for reflection - see
below). My impression is that it was a smaller, more simply built
iteration of the JAPANESE BEACHCRUISER #522 design with a cuddy,
which would row better in the conventional manner.
I haven't been able to find out much (= zilch) about NYMPH CUBED
which is what I think may be a multi-chine seaworthy MICRO
equivalent, or better. The MAIB article may have some discussion and
drawings, but all I've found of that article deals with the 11-
footer concept and not the 15'6" plan. I guess the PB&F article must
be wide ranging, and cover all the ins and outs of what could be
done with the NYMPH shape, and to what extent.
Anyway, you're interested in a REUBENS NYMPH type pram of 12-14ft,
so here's a bit about an 11-footer:
I got only 2 archive search returns for the "527". An 11footer is
mentioned with cuddy and coastal cruising ability in the pasted text
below:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"...Ask for MAIB Volume 18, #2; June 1, 2000. Or contact PB&F.
"Nymph Cubed"
Design #527
15'6" x 7'0" x 10'6"
1800 pounds displacement
panels...
like a long job to finish after the basic assembly; the old story,
that a bare
hull looks deceptively like a boat, that has trapped a lot of
people, including
some who should have known better. The ergonomics of the cuddy were
unsatisfactory. And given the prejudice against pram bows in
anything but
tenders, and the unfamiliarity of the lateen rig, it seemed likely
to be a hard
sell regardless of its merits. We put it aside for reflection.
feet on the water line is going to sail very fast, but it would have
felt
spirited and been handy. It would have looked neat and ship-shape
under sail
since it was laid out in such a way that two people could sit on the
weather
side without spoiling her fore-and-aft trim. It would have carried
enough
ballast to carry sail very well. Its too low sided to have a
seagoing range of
stability, though the high bilge and low rig would have made it
forgiving enough
for fine weather coastal cruising. For that matter, much worse
seaboats have
crossed oceans, with luck and skill...
bound to be damp with drip from the hatch.
very young, not good value in reality..."
(pasted here from back at the thread "Re: 2x scale Nymph", Message
#34894 of March 6, 2004, Mark. Originally pasted from MAIB, I think.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Is this 11-footer a possible contender from the Bolger stable that
fits in a niche alongside Matt Layden's remarkably able and small
SAND FLEA from the Florida Everglades Challenge earlier this year?
I'd like a mighty little coastal cruiser like that, has PB&F
others? Have PB&F "reflected"?
Graeme
> <michaelmickjoseph@...> wrote:The reference to REUBENS NYMPH #516 (the revised wider NYMPH #425),
> ... I was hoping (as I cannot find a list of his plans) for a
> design along the lines of Rubens Nymph only larger. A large pram
> or punt. 12-14ft. If I hear "June Bug" I'm gonna skip over and
> build the 15ft fishermans punt from Hannu...
and recent comments about MICRO #422 "packing crate" design come
coincidently just after I chased down what details I could about a
MAIB reference I'd seen to this "NYMPH CUBED #527" design.
Apparently an 11ft concept of a coastal cruising version of a NYMPH
dinghy was also looked at. Who knows, it, or similar, may be
available as a plan by now (There's been time for reflection - see
below). My impression is that it was a smaller, more simply built
iteration of the JAPANESE BEACHCRUISER #522 design with a cuddy,
which would row better in the conventional manner.
I haven't been able to find out much (= zilch) about NYMPH CUBED
which is what I think may be a multi-chine seaworthy MICRO
equivalent, or better. The MAIB article may have some discussion and
drawings, but all I've found of that article deals with the 11-
footer concept and not the 15'6" plan. I guess the PB&F article must
be wide ranging, and cover all the ins and outs of what could be
done with the NYMPH shape, and to what extent.
Anyway, you're interested in a REUBENS NYMPH type pram of 12-14ft,
so here's a bit about an 11-footer:
I got only 2 archive search returns for the "527". An 11footer is
mentioned with cuddy and coastal cruising ability in the pasted text
below:
-----------------------------------------------------------
"...Ask for MAIB Volume 18, #2; June 1, 2000. Or contact PB&F.
"Nymph Cubed"
Design #527
15'6" x 7'0" x 10'6"
1800 pounds displacement
>From the text:We got out a set of lines and offsets and expansions of all the
panels...
> At this point we had begun to have misgivings about it. It hadbegun to look
like a long job to finish after the basic assembly; the old story,
that a bare
hull looks deceptively like a boat, that has trapped a lot of
people, including
some who should have known better. The ergonomics of the cuddy were
unsatisfactory. And given the prejudice against pram bows in
anything but
tenders, and the unfamiliarity of the lateen rig, it seemed likely
to be a hard
sell regardless of its merits. We put it aside for reflection.
>boat eleven
> It would have been a highly respectable sailer of its class. No
feet on the water line is going to sail very fast, but it would have
felt
spirited and been handy. It would have looked neat and ship-shape
under sail
since it was laid out in such a way that two people could sit on the
weather
side without spoiling her fore-and-aft trim. It would have carried
enough
ballast to carry sail very well. Its too low sided to have a
seagoing range of
stability, though the high bilge and low rig would have made it
forgiving enough
for fine weather coastal cruising. For that matter, much worse
seaboats have
crossed oceans, with luck and skill...
>(>>>>it would be
>>>>>>)
> Noisy at anchor...
> Dry out nicely upright on mud...
> Only3/8" planking; steel shoe a good idea...
>
> There is no place to get really comfortable in the tiny cuddy and
bound to be damp with drip from the hatch.
>for the
> This is one of those designs that is good fun on paper, especially
very young, not good value in reality..."
(pasted here from back at the thread "Re: 2x scale Nymph", Message
#34894 of March 6, 2004, Mark. Originally pasted from MAIB, I think.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Is this 11-footer a possible contender from the Bolger stable that
fits in a niche alongside Matt Layden's remarkably able and small
SAND FLEA from the Florida Everglades Challenge earlier this year?
I'd like a mighty little coastal cruiser like that, has PB&F
others? Have PB&F "reflected"?
Graeme
--I doubt Jung Bug is the boat you want. Nice boat but I cannot say
it is a boat to carry four people with any degree of comfort. I have
just written to Mr. Bolger and posed the same question. I hope he
don't tell me that....I was hoping (as I cannot find a list of his
plans) for a design along the lines of Rubens Nymph only larger. A
large pram or punt. 12-14ft. If I hear "June Bug" I'm gonna skip over
and build the 15ft fishermans punt from Hannu...
- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...>
wrote:
______________
it is a boat to carry four people with any degree of comfort. I have
just written to Mr. Bolger and posed the same question. I hope he
don't tell me that....I was hoping (as I cannot find a list of his
plans) for a design along the lines of Rubens Nymph only larger. A
large pram or punt. 12-14ft. If I hear "June Bug" I'm gonna skip over
and build the 15ft fishermans punt from Hannu...
- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Sam Glasscock <glasscocklanding@...>
wrote:
>______________________________________________________________________
> I recently posed the same question to Mr. Boger: he
> recommended June Bug. Sam
> --- keelbolts <keelbolts@...> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > This my first post here. I've appreciated Mr.
> > Bolger's design
> > philosophy for years so, now that I'm looking to
> > build a 4 person
> > dingy, I thought of his work. Can you recommend a
> > Bolger dinghy that
> > would row reasonably well and carry 4 people.
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
______________
> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternativevehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
>http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
>
I recently posed the same question to Mr. Boger: he
recommended June Bug. Sam
--- keelbolts <keelbolts@...> wrote:
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
recommended June Bug. Sam
--- keelbolts <keelbolts@...> wrote:
> Hi,____________________________________________________________________________________
> This my first post here. I've appreciated Mr.
> Bolger's design
> philosophy for years so, now that I'm looking to
> build a 4 person
> dingy, I thought of his work. Can you recommend a
> Bolger dinghy that
> would row reasonably well and carry 4 people.
> Thanks.
>
>
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
My vote is for June Bug. I don't know of any design that more
efficiently uses sheets of ply more efficiently to produce such a great
load carrier that rows well.
(Was going to start mine today, but went fishing in the POinty Skiff
instead.)
David Jost, Boat Brat
efficiently uses sheets of ply more efficiently to produce such a great
load carrier that rows well.
(Was going to start mine today, but went fishing in the POinty Skiff
instead.)
David Jost, Boat Brat
On 9/3/07, keelbolts <keelbolts@...> wrote:
(including 4 teenage girls) in my Cartoon 5, and that is more than
there are seats, but not more than there is freeboard.
> Hi,A Brick is about the right size. I have carried six people,
> This my first post here. I've appreciated Mr. Bolger's design
> philosophy for years so, now that I'm looking to build a 4 person
> dingy, I thought of his work. Can you recommend a Bolger dinghy that
> would row reasonably well and carry 4 people. Thanks.
(including 4 teenage girls) in my Cartoon 5, and that is more than
there are seats, but not more than there is freeboard.
Reubens Nymph seems like a natural for you. As Dynamite Payosn's site
says, "Easily takes four adults with dunnage."
http://www.instantboats.com/rnymph.htm
Jim Michalak's Vole has similar dimensions, but is primarily a sailing
dinghy. I modified one to row and sail (made the mast partner
removable so I could access a useful front seat). You could install
better seats for your needs if you want a pure rowing boat.
http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/vole/index.htm
Good luck!
Garth
says, "Easily takes four adults with dunnage."
http://www.instantboats.com/rnymph.htm
Jim Michalak's Vole has similar dimensions, but is primarily a sailing
dinghy. I modified one to row and sail (made the mast partner
removable so I could access a useful front seat). You could install
better seats for your needs if you want a pure rowing boat.
http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/vole/index.htm
Good luck!
Garth
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "keelbolts" <keelbolts@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> This my first post here. I've appreciated Mr. Bolger's design
> philosophy for years so, now that I'm looking to build a 4 person
> dingy, I thought of his work. Can you recommend a Bolger dinghy that
> would row reasonably well and carry 4 people. Thanks.
>
Hi,
This my first post here. I've appreciated Mr. Bolger's design
philosophy for years so, now that I'm looking to build a 4 person
dingy, I thought of his work. Can you recommend a Bolger dinghy that
would row reasonably well and carry 4 people. Thanks.
This my first post here. I've appreciated Mr. Bolger's design
philosophy for years so, now that I'm looking to build a 4 person
dingy, I thought of his work. Can you recommend a Bolger dinghy that
would row reasonably well and carry 4 people. Thanks.