ESC & ANHINGA stern down trim (was Re: Eeek! Fat chance Tale of a Sailing Canoe)
> who can say how this rudder works?Bungee bump jumper sprung dagger?
Remote rudder mount motor controls and electric start? Fuel where?
Chris?
Before this thread fades into obscurity ( only to rise again joyfully
sometime later ), who can say how this rudder works? The end plate is
unique in being fixed so much higher than the bottom of the assembly.
A neat piece of Bolger work that gives the maximum torque in shallow
water but also has a more normal high aspect ratio efficiency as
desired.
Does the blade go up and down in the case hinged to the stern? Or what?
sometime later ), who can say how this rudder works? The end plate is
unique in being fixed so much higher than the bottom of the assembly.
A neat piece of Bolger work that gives the maximum torque in shallow
water but also has a more normal high aspect ratio efficiency as
desired.
Does the blade go up and down in the case hinged to the stern? Or what?
Au contraire ;-), the ballast mass is centred where the most bouyancy is, which is abaft midships or actually further aft of that, and if so then it's cantilevering the forward mass of the boat.
Similarly, for the more typical boat with the ordinary rocker that has most of its displacement near or at midships: that is where the ballast mass centres to obtain level trim. If the ESC type carried ballast amidships, ahead of the level trim c o b, - all else being equal - then she will trim down by the bow; and if the ordinarily rockered boat carried her ballast well aft of her cob, or before it, - all else being equal - then she will trim down by either the bow or stern respectively. I'ts a balancing act. If both boats are trimmed level with ballast where it serves best - all else being equal - then that ordinary boat with well designed sections will still trim pretty level fore and aft as she heels. However, the ESC, or any fine pointed stern boat that carries ballast aft of c o b will go down by the stern as she heels.
An upright or slightly heeled ESC type having the major part of her displacement and therefore her bouyancy aft would certainly lift to a following sea ok, but the comparative dynamic situation - accelerating that aft situated ballast mass - may slow the reaction. However, the depth of the bouyant immersed sections adjacent the very stern, the generous freeboard and quite substantial reserve bouyancy aft would I believe see her rise satisfactorily. With increasing degrees of heel under sail that behaviour may change, but, if it were to increase to an "exciting" degree, is it the boat or the seamanship that is lacking? Methinks running off under bare poles would present no particularly unusual performance issue. These small sharpies are for *economically* having the potential of ESCaping seaward to cruise coastwise and not ocean wide in any case - very shoal draft superb gunkholer possessing seagoing capability within reason.
Similarly, for the more typical boat with the ordinary rocker that has most of its displacement near or at midships: that is where the ballast mass centres to obtain level trim. If the ESC type carried ballast amidships, ahead of the level trim c o b, - all else being equal - then she will trim down by the bow; and if the ordinarily rockered boat carried her ballast well aft of her cob, or before it, - all else being equal - then she will trim down by either the bow or stern respectively. I'ts a balancing act. If both boats are trimmed level with ballast where it serves best - all else being equal - then that ordinary boat with well designed sections will still trim pretty level fore and aft as she heels. However, the ESC, or any fine pointed stern boat that carries ballast aft of c o b will go down by the stern as she heels.
An upright or slightly heeled ESC type having the major part of her displacement and therefore her bouyancy aft would certainly lift to a following sea ok, but the comparative dynamic situation - accelerating that aft situated ballast mass - may slow the reaction. However, the depth of the bouyant immersed sections adjacent the very stern, the generous freeboard and quite substantial reserve bouyancy aft would I believe see her rise satisfactorily. With increasing degrees of heel under sail that behaviour may change, but, if it were to increase to an "exciting" degree, is it the boat or the seamanship that is lacking? Methinks running off under bare poles would present no particularly unusual performance issue. These small sharpies are for *economically* having the potential of ESCaping seaward to cruise coastwise and not ocean wide in any case - very shoal draft superb gunkholer possessing seagoing capability within reason.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
> > A boat with lots of buoyancy aft could lift its
> > stern quickly to a following sea,
> The ESC types aren't in this class because the ballast is carried
> so far aft, reducing the relative buoyancy.
> > If the stern has low buoyancy relative to the forward portion of
> > the hull, it can reduce the tendency to broach.
> More common than a pitchpole, yet a twofer.
> No need to get hung up on the ESC's deep stern. It's most probably
> carefully balanced, just right, however experimental. Use it for a
> narrower boat, still with a deep and roomy cockpit, one that'll
> part the following seas and with terrific tracking, if that suits.
Interesting.
This has been discussed and debated ,on several occasions , in several places :
Excuse me, but I just noticed the "Double-Ender" entry, and read the replys.
I just can't resist:
To begin with, Scott Russel was the Englishman whose "Wave Line Theory" Colin Archer read, believed part of, and revised as he felt necessary. That theory, and Russels's, mainly go on the presumption that since a moving vessel makes a bow and a stern wave, it would allow the vessel to move more easily if the volumes of the ends corresponded to the increased water pressure due to the wave buildup along the hull at the ends; in other words, make the vessel fit the hills and holes in the water that vessel itself causes by its movement. This makes sense to me, even in the year 2000, but more impressive is that boats designed to comply with the theory do move slightly faster, and with less horsepower expended while moving the same displacement than their non-wave form theory sisters. I leave the tank-testing of John Hannah's "Caroll" and the design that later became the "Tahiti" ketch hulls, against comparable Archer hulls, to others. I know it works, and that's good enough for me. My own North Sea Fisherman, built in 1917 in Risor, Norway, utilizes the same principle, as do most of the boats of the period built on the South Coast of Norway.
To those who say there is no difference in seaworthiness provided by the double-ended shape, I can only say that I very much doubt whether they have experienced a real North Sea storm in such a vessel, when the waves are vertical, breaking, and from three directions at once. Then it isn't just how the vessel is shaped to the waterline, because the effective waterline is often nearer the deck than where is usually is. The North Sea is a place like no other, at such a time, and anyone who has seen it like that would know it again. The double-enders were shaped to try to live in those conditions, and live they usually do. Many other designs often do not. That such a stern better facilitates leaving the side of a larger vessel, or a quay, is a spinoff. The real reason for the shape is seaworthiness, and I maintain that the sort of boat LFH and the others designed has little to do with that shape, except that both are at least somewhat pointed at both ends. I think William Atkin and William Garden came the closest, with"Eric", the two "Bullfrog"s and "Seal". The others, in my opinion, aren't very close in concept.
It isn't just the shape that makes the difference, but the blend of shape, displacement, and disposition of weight both vertically and longitudinally that make similar vessels differ. Archer, like everyone else, designed boats for particular jobs, and with very different priorities. His pilot boats would have been a bit more seaworthy for the average cruising sailor had they been, on the average, a little fuller in the stern. They were not intended to be cruising boats for the average cruising sailor. They were intended to be fairly seaworthy, but for professionals whose livelihood depended upon getting to the ship to be piloted first, before the other pilots beat them to it.
And get there first they very often did, making them very successful pilot boats, and safe enough, usually, in the hands of professionals. The obvious morale is, " If you want a good cruising boat, design a boat to do that. If you want something else, design that. Don't generalize about a shape, without talking about the other factors involved with that shape, and don't expect shape alone to solve the seaworthiness problem." I also maintain that the double-ended shape, be it full enough where it counts, and fine enough where that counts, when coupled with the correct amount of correctly-located weight and total displacement, is the best solution to the seaworthiness problem, in very severe conditions.
Those who say that double-enders lack volume in the ends haven't really experienced a North Sea fisherman---my boat, with a deck length of 49 1/4', must have eighteen tons of just ballast, distributed well strung-out, also toward the ends, just to keep her from pitching one off the foredeck in a head sea. Volume she has, in the freeboard of the ends, much more than most, and yet is quite fine underwater. For her 45-ton displacement, she is remarkably easily driven. Archer concentrated the ballast of his Redningskoytes toward the center of buoyancy, and in the keel, so that they would pitch unmercifully in ultimate conditions, and have great righting moment, but keep their decks as free of green water as possible. That's great for the North of Norway in the winter, but very tiring for the usually small crew of a cruising sailboat. Again, design the boat for the job. And trust a heavy, well-designed double-ender, when the sea becomes really windy and lumpy. They survive, as do their crews. I have owned two of them, for a total of over forty years, 32' and 49+' on deck, mostly in the North Sea but also in the Caribbean and Eastern U.S., and found the above to be true when it really counted, every time.
Cheers, Jeff Lane
Mr Lane makes a good case .....
This has been discussed and debated ,on several occasions , in several places :
Excuse me, but I just noticed the "Double-Ender" entry, and read the replys.
I just can't resist:
To begin with, Scott Russel was the Englishman whose "Wave Line Theory" Colin Archer read, believed part of, and revised as he felt necessary. That theory, and Russels's, mainly go on the presumption that since a moving vessel makes a bow and a stern wave, it would allow the vessel to move more easily if the volumes of the ends corresponded to the increased water pressure due to the wave buildup along the hull at the ends; in other words, make the vessel fit the hills and holes in the water that vessel itself causes by its movement. This makes sense to me, even in the year 2000, but more impressive is that boats designed to comply with the theory do move slightly faster, and with less horsepower expended while moving the same displacement than their non-wave form theory sisters. I leave the tank-testing of John Hannah's "Caroll" and the design that later became the "Tahiti" ketch hulls, against comparable Archer hulls, to others. I know it works, and that's good enough for me. My own North Sea Fisherman, built in 1917 in Risor, Norway, utilizes the same principle, as do most of the boats of the period built on the South Coast of Norway.
To those who say there is no difference in seaworthiness provided by the double-ended shape, I can only say that I very much doubt whether they have experienced a real North Sea storm in such a vessel, when the waves are vertical, breaking, and from three directions at once. Then it isn't just how the vessel is shaped to the waterline, because the effective waterline is often nearer the deck than where is usually is. The North Sea is a place like no other, at such a time, and anyone who has seen it like that would know it again. The double-enders were shaped to try to live in those conditions, and live they usually do. Many other designs often do not. That such a stern better facilitates leaving the side of a larger vessel, or a quay, is a spinoff. The real reason for the shape is seaworthiness, and I maintain that the sort of boat LFH and the others designed has little to do with that shape, except that both are at least somewhat pointed at both ends. I think William Atkin and William Garden came the closest, with"Eric", the two "Bullfrog"s and "Seal". The others, in my opinion, aren't very close in concept.
It isn't just the shape that makes the difference, but the blend of shape, displacement, and disposition of weight both vertically and longitudinally that make similar vessels differ. Archer, like everyone else, designed boats for particular jobs, and with very different priorities. His pilot boats would have been a bit more seaworthy for the average cruising sailor had they been, on the average, a little fuller in the stern. They were not intended to be cruising boats for the average cruising sailor. They were intended to be fairly seaworthy, but for professionals whose livelihood depended upon getting to the ship to be piloted first, before the other pilots beat them to it.
And get there first they very often did, making them very successful pilot boats, and safe enough, usually, in the hands of professionals. The obvious morale is, " If you want a good cruising boat, design a boat to do that. If you want something else, design that. Don't generalize about a shape, without talking about the other factors involved with that shape, and don't expect shape alone to solve the seaworthiness problem." I also maintain that the double-ended shape, be it full enough where it counts, and fine enough where that counts, when coupled with the correct amount of correctly-located weight and total displacement, is the best solution to the seaworthiness problem, in very severe conditions.
Those who say that double-enders lack volume in the ends haven't really experienced a North Sea fisherman---my boat, with a deck length of 49 1/4', must have eighteen tons of just ballast, distributed well strung-out, also toward the ends, just to keep her from pitching one off the foredeck in a head sea. Volume she has, in the freeboard of the ends, much more than most, and yet is quite fine underwater. For her 45-ton displacement, she is remarkably easily driven. Archer concentrated the ballast of his Redningskoytes toward the center of buoyancy, and in the keel, so that they would pitch unmercifully in ultimate conditions, and have great righting moment, but keep their decks as free of green water as possible. That's great for the North of Norway in the winter, but very tiring for the usually small crew of a cruising sailboat. Again, design the boat for the job. And trust a heavy, well-designed double-ender, when the sea becomes really windy and lumpy. They survive, as do their crews. I have owned two of them, for a total of over forty years, 32' and 49+' on deck, mostly in the North Sea but also in the Caribbean and Eastern U.S., and found the above to be true when it really counted, every time.
Cheers, Jeff Lane
[ http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?11748-Double-enders ]
Mr Lane makes a good case .....
The Bartenders did have a use on the East Coast
HJ
HJ
On 8/27/2012 3:47 PM, John Kohnen wrote:One of the advantages of a double-ender when running a bar ("inlet" down there in Florida) is that a following sea will part around the sharp stern, not getting as good a grip on it as it would with a transom. The lack of buoyancy aft in Egret may be related to Colin Archer's ideas about following seas, as demonstrated in his redningskoite's (sp?). Archer's rescue boats had steep, sharp runs. His idea was that as the boat came down the face of a big wave, the lack of bearing aft would cause the stern to dig in, keeping the boat from going too fast and, just as importantly, keeping the rudder deeply immersed where it would work best, even in a broken sea. A boat with lots of buoyancy aft could lift its stern quickly to a following sea, pulling the rudder partway out of the water (even all the way out, if it's a shallow rudder like on a motorboat), and pushing the bow down if it doesn't have a lot of buoyancy. Not a good combination... Archer's rescue boats are marvelously seaworthy, but they have a low top speed because of their lack of bearing aft. You pays your money and you takes your choice. <shrug> Most of us don't ever need a boat as seaworthy as a redningskoite, but if I was gonna be sailing around Cape Horn, or poking around other dangerous places, I'd sure feel more comfortable in one, or one of Billy Atkin's closer adaptations of the type -- Eric, Thistle or Ingrid (or even the plastic version of Eric/Thistle, the Wetsnail 32, though I've heard that a Westsail will never sail as well as a real Eric/Thistle due to changes in ballast and rig). An interesting design for running the bars on the Northwest coast, which make anything on the East Coast look pretty tame, is George Calkins' Bartender. A planing double-ender! Despite the fat stern needed to plane, they handle wonderfully on a rough bar:http://www.bartenderboats.com/On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:24:16 -0700, Bruce H wrote:Part of my intent with the boat modeling I have done is to attempt to "read the mind" of some master designers. Munroe's Egret is considered to be a 'master' design for a surf boat, and it certainly has reduced buoyancy in the after part of the boat, so this kind of confirms things. My conclusion after studying what master designers have done (including PCB)...broaching is caused when the stern lifts (causing the bow to dig). If the stern has low buoyancy relative to the forward portion of the hull, it can reduce the tendency to broach.
A boat with lots of buoyancy aft could lift itsstern quickly to a following sea,
The ESC types aren't
in this class because the ballast is carried so far aft, reducing the relative buoyancy.
If the stern has low buoyancy relative to the forward portion of the hull, it can reduce the tendency to broach.
More common than a pitchpole, yet a twofer.
No need to get hung up on the ESC's deep stern. It's most probably carefully balanced, just right, however experimental. Use it for a narrower boat, still with a deep and roomy cockpit, one that'll part the following seas and with terrific tracking, if that suits.
One of the advantages of a double-ender when running a bar ("inlet" down
there in Florida) is that a following sea will part around the sharp
stern, not getting as good a grip on it as it would with a transom.
The lack of buoyancy aft in Egret may be related to Colin Archer's ideas
about following seas, as demonstrated in his redningskoite's (sp?).
Archer's rescue boats had steep, sharp runs. His idea was that as the boat
came down the face of a big wave, the lack of bearing aft would cause the
stern to dig in, keeping the boat from going too fast and, just as
importantly, keeping the rudder deeply immersed where it would work best,
even in a broken sea. A boat with lots of buoyancy aft could lift its
stern quickly to a following sea, pulling the rudder partway out of the
water (even all the way out, if it's a shallow rudder like on a
motorboat), and pushing the bow down if it doesn't have a lot of buoyancy.
Not a good combination...
Archer's rescue boats are marvelously seaworthy, but they have a low top
speed because of their lack of bearing aft. You pays your money and you
takes your choice. <shrug> Most of us don't ever need a boat as seaworthy
as a redningskoite, but if I was gonna be sailing around Cape Horn, or
poking around other dangerous places, I'd sure feel more comfortable in
one, or one of Billy Atkin's closer adaptations of the type -- Eric,
Thistle or Ingrid (or even the plastic version of Eric/Thistle, the
Wetsnail 32, though I've heard that a Westsail will never sail as well as
a real Eric/Thistle due to changes in ballast and rig).
An interesting design for running the bars on the Northwest coast, which
make anything on the East Coast look pretty tame, is George Calkins'
Bartender. A planing double-ender! Despite the fat stern needed to plane,
they handle wonderfully on a rough bar:
http://www.bartenderboats.com/
there in Florida) is that a following sea will part around the sharp
stern, not getting as good a grip on it as it would with a transom.
The lack of buoyancy aft in Egret may be related to Colin Archer's ideas
about following seas, as demonstrated in his redningskoite's (sp?).
Archer's rescue boats had steep, sharp runs. His idea was that as the boat
came down the face of a big wave, the lack of bearing aft would cause the
stern to dig in, keeping the boat from going too fast and, just as
importantly, keeping the rudder deeply immersed where it would work best,
even in a broken sea. A boat with lots of buoyancy aft could lift its
stern quickly to a following sea, pulling the rudder partway out of the
water (even all the way out, if it's a shallow rudder like on a
motorboat), and pushing the bow down if it doesn't have a lot of buoyancy.
Not a good combination...
Archer's rescue boats are marvelously seaworthy, but they have a low top
speed because of their lack of bearing aft. You pays your money and you
takes your choice. <shrug> Most of us don't ever need a boat as seaworthy
as a redningskoite, but if I was gonna be sailing around Cape Horn, or
poking around other dangerous places, I'd sure feel more comfortable in
one, or one of Billy Atkin's closer adaptations of the type -- Eric,
Thistle or Ingrid (or even the plastic version of Eric/Thistle, the
Wetsnail 32, though I've heard that a Westsail will never sail as well as
a real Eric/Thistle due to changes in ballast and rig).
An interesting design for running the bars on the Northwest coast, which
make anything on the East Coast look pretty tame, is George Calkins'
Bartender. A planing double-ender! Despite the fat stern needed to plane,
they handle wonderfully on a rough bar:
http://www.bartenderboats.com/
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:24:16 -0700, Bruce H wrote:
> Part of my intent with the boat modeling I have done is to attempt to
> "read
> the mind" of some master designers. Munroe's Egret is considered to be a
> 'master' design for a surf boat, and it certainly has reduced buoyancy in
> the after part of the boat, so this kind of confirms things.
>
> My conclusion after studying what master designers have done (including
> PCB)...broaching is caused when the stern lifts (causing the bow to dig).
> If the stern has low buoyancy relative to the forward portion of the
> hull,
> it can reduce the tendency to broach.
--
John (jkohnen@...)
It is requisite for the relaxation of the mind that we make use,
from time to time, of playful deeds and jokes. (St. Thomas
Aquinas)
Part of my intent with the boat modeling I have done is to attempt to "read the mind" of some master designers. Munroe's Egret is considered to be a 'master' design for a surf boat, and it certainly has reduced buoyancy in the after part of the boat, so this kind of confirms things.
My conclusion after studying what master designers have done (including PCB)...broaching is caused when the stern lifts (causing the bow to dig). If the stern has low buoyancy relative to the forward portion of the hull, it can reduce the tendency to broach.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Mark Albanese<marka97203@...>wrote:Maybe I have the terminology wrong since I've only been to sea in a troop ship, but I would have thought that less bouyancy aft would reduce the tendency to pitchpole, go end over end, while more helps the stern lift to the big wave crashing in from behind. Somewhere in the middle may be a tendency to broach. :)On Aug 27, 2012, at 1:40 PM, BruceHallman wrote:I think that Egret was designed to sail through the surf, which means that it expected to get "pooped" frequently. Munroe, being talented, designed that boat to sustain being pooped by having plenty of buoyancy forward, and very little afterwards.
My mental image is to visualize this in the extreme. A balloon tied to a string would always keep pointed in the right direction in the surf.On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Mark Albanese<marka97203@...>wrote:"Cod's head and mackeral tail." But more likely to be pooped?
Maybe I have the terminology wrong since I've only been to sea in a troop ship, but I would have thought that less bouyancy aft would reduce the tendency to pitchpole, go end over end, while more helps the stern lift to the big wave crashing in from behind. Somewhere in the middle may be a tendency to broach. :)
On Aug 27, 2012, at 1:40 PM, BruceHallman wrote:
I think that Egret was designed to sail through the surf, which means that it expected to get "pooped" frequently. Munroe, being talented, designed that boat to sustain being pooped by having plenty of buoyancy forward, and very little afterwards.
My mental image is to visualize this in the extreme. A balloon tied to a string would always keep pointed in the right direction in the surf.On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Mark Albanese<marka97203@...>wrote:"Cod's head and mackeral tail." But more likely to be pooped?
I think that Egret was designed to sail through the surf, which means that it expected to get "pooped" frequently. Munroe, being talented, designed that boat to sustain being pooped by having plenty of buoyancy forward, and very little afterwards.
My mental image is to visualize this in the extreme. A balloon tied to a string would always keep pointed in the right direction in the surf.
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Mark Albanese<marka97203@...>wrote:"Cod's head and mackeral tail." But more likely to be pooped?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
> I don't have that MAIB, but my recollection of other EgretThis one is about like that belly without being overly deep nor with the bustle being more or less rockered symetrically fore and aft - think somewhere between CANARD and WINDSPRINT in bottom profile proportional depth.
> versions is they may have a pretty deep belly without the bow
> being cut so clear of the water at rest as the ESC types.
>http://tinyurl.com/9oxyo4b
> We may have been here before, but why can't the bow lift withoutMight take a broke back to do that, I think ;-) It's not so much to do with the bow being cut high or not - its the sectional plan view as she rolls - the waterplane - and how the cob moves forward of the cog. She's ballasted for upright level trim. The ballast is in the stern. There is little reserve bouyancy in the narrowing stern quarters, so that as she heels the stern bouyancy shrinks, she settles by the stern, and the bow lifts -- which is good for speed and handling accccording to PCB sharpie water flow theory.
> the stern sinking much? And wouldn't that be better?
> Mark
> On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:27 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
> > One for Mark and Thomas...
> > Stability:
"Cod's head and mackeral tail." But more likely to be pooped?
On Aug 27, 2012, at 12:43 PM, BruceHallman wrote:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/tags/egret/
Shows my model of the Munroe Egret. The thing that catches my eye about that design is the low amount of buoyancy aft, which would make the boat less likely to turn end for end in a following surf.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/tags/egret/
Shows my model of the Munroe Egret. The thing that catches my eye about that design is the low amount of buoyancy aft, which would make the boat less likely to turn end for end in a following surf.
The sides of the ESC are only about 4 feet high. When I long ago bought Anhingaplans, Phil wrote that he'd been pushingBirdwatcheras a superior concept but that theAnhingadid have some nice qualities, not the least in being fabulously roomy.
Perhaps the BW cabin has too much windage for a seagoing boat - especially a light, flat sharpie. When first seeing the ESC drawings I mistook the overturned dinghy on top for a little dog house. Some such would give about 5' 6" headroom.
Mark
On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Dave Gentry wrote:
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mapango" <ccurtis-keyword-crusing.65bae6@...> wrote:
>
> Hello All. I finally got some time and found the ESC plans. They are listed as design #429. Does anyone have any specific questions about them? I'll try to answer if possible!
>
I'd be interested to know how many sheets of plywood are required, and what thickness.
I'd like to know what's going on with the rudder, and if the cockpit is self bailing and where people's heads go on those settees. Also what the connection between it and the cabin looks like (is it set up to prevent flooding, etc).
How high is the mast, how's it made, etc.
Thanks for any light you can shed. I'm psyched that someone actually has plans for this boat!
BTW, in my one coversation with Ms Altenburger, shee mentioned the idea that a Birdwatcher style slot top would make the cabin a whole lot more liveable . . . .
Dave
www.GentryCustomBoats.com
We may have been here before, but why can't the bow lift without the stern sinking much? And wouldn't that be better?
Mark
On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:27 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
One for Mark and Thomas...
Stability: the end point pondered and debated over time, especially those ESC series beam-ends performance stability-whys.
aH HA! Now here we have another double ender, pointy stern: Plan view shape similar to ANHINGA (ie c o b abaft midships). Profile view shows respectable amount of rocker from stem to stern (ie disimilar to ANHINGA)
Get this... snipped from Bolger on Design, MAIB V12-N12:
"Sharpie
8.5M x 2.28M x .45M (29'0" x 7'5" x 1'6")
A development of the Munroe "Egret" type for sailing in the vicinity of Sydney, Australia. Her big rig can be shortened without spoiling her balance by taking deeper reefs in the foresail than in the mainsail.
The outboard motor is fitted to the sharp-stern hull by swinging the motor mount up and back into the flare of the stern, with a minimum hole in the bottom and preemption of space for the slop well.
She's prefabricated without an assembly jig. The side panels have straight and parallel edges and constant bevels. A THOUSAND POUNDS OF BALLAST IS PLACED WELL AFT, TO CARRY HER BOW HIGH. THE WEIGHT AND BOUYANCY ARE SO ARRANGED THAT HER BOW LIFTS AS SHE HEELS (yes!!! - my capitals).
The off-centerboard trunk opens to the deck outside the coaming, with a tounge on the board to keep the hoisting pendant in the open through the full travel of the board."
I've thought that's how ANHINGA would behave on heeling. Eeek! and ESC would do likewise. Of course... the stern sinks as she heels. Now the stability whys are seen as having been answered by PCB.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mapango" <ccurtis-keyword-crusing.65bae6@...> wrote:
I'd like to know what's going on with the rudder, and if the cockpit is self bailing and where people's heads go on those settees. Also what the connection between it and the cabin looks like (is it set up to prevent flooding, etc).
How high is the mast, how's it made, etc.
Thanks for any light you can shed. I'm psyched that someone actually has plans for this boat!
BTW, in my one coversation with Ms Altenburger, shee mentioned the idea that a Birdwatcher style slot top would make the cabin a whole lot more liveable . . . .
Dave
www.GentryCustomBoats.com
>I'd be interested to know how many sheets of plywood are required, and what thickness.
> Hello All. I finally got some time and found the ESC plans. They are listed as design #429. Does anyone have any specific questions about them? I'll try to answer if possible!
>
I'd like to know what's going on with the rudder, and if the cockpit is self bailing and where people's heads go on those settees. Also what the connection between it and the cabin looks like (is it set up to prevent flooding, etc).
How high is the mast, how's it made, etc.
Thanks for any light you can shed. I'm psyched that someone actually has plans for this boat!
BTW, in my one coversation with Ms Altenburger, shee mentioned the idea that a Birdwatcher style slot top would make the cabin a whole lot more liveable . . . .
Dave
www.GentryCustomBoats.com
One for Mark and Thomas...
Stability: the end point pondered and debated over time, especially those ESC series beam-ends performance stability-whys.
aH HA! Now here we have another double ender, pointy stern: Plan view shape similar to ANHINGA (ie c o b abaft midships). Profile view shows respectable amount of rocker from stem to stern (ie disimilar to ANHINGA)
Get this... snipped from Bolger on Design, MAIB V12-N12:
"Sharpie
8.5M x 2.28M x .45M (29'0" x 7'5" x 1'6")
A development of the Munroe "Egret" type for sailing in the vicinity of Sydney, Australia. Her big rig can be shortened without spoiling her balance by taking deeper reefs in the foresail than in the mainsail.
The outboard motor is fitted to the sharp-stern hull by swinging the motor mount up and back into the flare of the stern, with a minimum hole in the bottom and preemption of space for the slop well.
She's prefabricated without an assembly jig. The side panels have straight and parallel edges and constant bevels. A THOUSAND POUNDS OF BALLAST IS PLACED WELL AFT, TO CARRY HER BOW HIGH. THE WEIGHT AND BOUYANCY ARE SO ARRANGED THAT HER BOW LIFTS AS SHE HEELS (yes!!! - my capitals).
The off-centerboard trunk opens to the deck outside the coaming, with a tounge on the board to keep the hoisting pendant in the open through the full travel of the board."
I've thought that's how ANHINGA would behave on heeling. Eeek! and ESC would do likewise. Of course... the stern sinks as she heels. Now the stability whys are seen as having been answered by PCB.
Stability: the end point pondered and debated over time, especially those ESC series beam-ends performance stability-whys.
aH HA! Now here we have another double ender, pointy stern: Plan view shape similar to ANHINGA (ie c o b abaft midships). Profile view shows respectable amount of rocker from stem to stern (ie disimilar to ANHINGA)
Get this... snipped from Bolger on Design, MAIB V12-N12:
"Sharpie
8.5M x 2.28M x .45M (29'0" x 7'5" x 1'6")
A development of the Munroe "Egret" type for sailing in the vicinity of Sydney, Australia. Her big rig can be shortened without spoiling her balance by taking deeper reefs in the foresail than in the mainsail.
The outboard motor is fitted to the sharp-stern hull by swinging the motor mount up and back into the flare of the stern, with a minimum hole in the bottom and preemption of space for the slop well.
She's prefabricated without an assembly jig. The side panels have straight and parallel edges and constant bevels. A THOUSAND POUNDS OF BALLAST IS PLACED WELL AFT, TO CARRY HER BOW HIGH. THE WEIGHT AND BOUYANCY ARE SO ARRANGED THAT HER BOW LIFTS AS SHE HEELS (yes!!! - my capitals).
The off-centerboard trunk opens to the deck outside the coaming, with a tounge on the board to keep the hoisting pendant in the open through the full travel of the board."
I've thought that's how ANHINGA would behave on heeling. Eeek! and ESC would do likewise. Of course... the stern sinks as she heels. Now the stability whys are seen as having been answered by PCB.
#429 Whooohooo000!
Questions? You betcha! Specifically... lots!
Just to begin with: how's she built?
What of?
How many ply sheets? Of what thickness?
Is it sharpie build style - part topsides and bottom - with a flip?
Does she displace 8300lb, same as sketch in 30-ODD, or was that changed? 8300lb - great range
How much ballast? What kind? Water? Concrete/scrap steel? Steel shoe?
Outboard power rating?
How high are the sides? Any more than 4ft 6in head room below deck? This is exciting. I want one!
Height over bunk?
Is the internal fitout detailed in plans, say the same as in 30-ODD, but detailed?
Tankage: water - fuel?
Bouyancy: any - how much - where?
Sailplan: options? Mast construction type? Any reefing option?
How's that dagger cassette rudder work? What's the ergonomics look like for the helm with that tiller?
How many plans sheets in the set? Any other included correspondence from the designer about the boat or on building?
This is mighty fine news Chris.
Questions? You betcha! Specifically... lots!
Just to begin with: how's she built?
What of?
How many ply sheets? Of what thickness?
Is it sharpie build style - part topsides and bottom - with a flip?
Does she displace 8300lb, same as sketch in 30-ODD, or was that changed? 8300lb - great range
How much ballast? What kind? Water? Concrete/scrap steel? Steel shoe?
Outboard power rating?
How high are the sides? Any more than 4ft 6in head room below deck? This is exciting. I want one!
Height over bunk?
Is the internal fitout detailed in plans, say the same as in 30-ODD, but detailed?
Tankage: water - fuel?
Bouyancy: any - how much - where?
Sailplan: options? Mast construction type? Any reefing option?
How's that dagger cassette rudder work? What's the ergonomics look like for the helm with that tiller?
How many plans sheets in the set? Any other included correspondence from the designer about the boat or on building?
This is mighty fine news Chris.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mapango" <ccurtis-keyword-crusing.65bae6@...> wrote:
> Hello All. I finally got some time and found the ESC plans. They are listed as design #429. Does anyone have any specific questions about them? I'll try to answer if possible!
> Chris Curtis
> S/V/Romany
> curtisfamilyadventures.wordpress.com
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:
> > Chris,
> > are you be able to check, and then let us know the ESC design number please. If you could, that'd be great and much appreciated. That maybe one was built, and there may be actual plans - this IS exciting news.
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mapango" <ccurtis-keyword-crusing.65bae6@> wrote:
> > > I think I still have the plans for the ESC. I liked the plans but not the rig. I think it would be great to see one built. It would be helpful to know if that hull style worked well or not!
> > > Chris Curtis
> > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:
> > > > Eco, ESC, shallow seas dream, shoal pocket scheme, lickitysplit scram a cruising plan. The plans. They are done then?
What does it look like/dimensions?
From:joe_mapango <ccurtis-keyword-crusing.65bae6@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2012 11:32 AM
Subject:[bolger] Economical Seagoing Cruiser (was Re: Eeek! Fat chance - Tale of a Sailing Canoe)
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2012 11:32 AM
Subject:[bolger] Economical Seagoing Cruiser (was Re: Eeek! Fat chance - Tale of a Sailing Canoe)
Hello All. I finally got some time and found the ESC plans. They are listed as design #429. Does anyone have any specific questions about them? I'll try to answer if possible!
Chris Curtis
S/V/Romany
curtisfamilyadventures.wordpress.com
Chris Curtis
S/V/Romany
curtisfamilyadventures.wordpress.com
--- Inmailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris,
>
> are you be able to check, and then let us know the ESC design number please. If you could, that'd be great and much appreciated. That maybe one was built, and there may be actual plans - this IS exciting news.
>
>
>
> --- Inmailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com, "joe_mapango" <ccurtis-keyword-crusing.65bae6@> wrote:
>
> > I think I still have the plans for the ESC. I liked the plans but not the rig. I think it would be great to see one built. It would be helpful to know if that hull style worked well or not!
>
> > Chris Curtis
>
> > --- Inmailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:
>
> > > Eco, ESC, shallow seas dream, shoal pocket scheme, lickitysplit scram a cruising plan. The plans. They are done then?
> > >
>
Hello All. I finally got some time and found the ESC plans. They are listed as design #429. Does anyone have any specific questions about them? I'll try to answer if possible!
Chris Curtis
S/V/Romany
curtisfamilyadventures.wordpress.com
Chris Curtis
S/V/Romany
curtisfamilyadventures.wordpress.com
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Chris,
>
> are you be able to check, and then let us know the ESC design number please. If you could, that'd be great and much appreciated. That maybe one was built, and there may be actual plans - this IS exciting news.
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mapango" <ccurtis-keyword-crusing.65bae6@> wrote:
>
> > I think I still have the plans for the ESC. I liked the plans but not the rig. I think it would be great to see one built. It would be helpful to know if that hull style worked well or not!
>
> > Chris Curtis
>
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:
>
> > > Eco, ESC, shallow seas dream, shoal pocket scheme, lickitysplit scram a cruising plan. The plans. They are done then?
> > >
>
Chris,
are you be able to check, and then let us know the ESC design number please. If you could, that'd be great and much appreciated. That maybe one was built, and there may be actual plans - this IS exciting news.
are you be able to check, and then let us know the ESC design number please. If you could, that'd be great and much appreciated. That maybe one was built, and there may be actual plans - this IS exciting news.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mapango" <ccurtis-keyword-crusing.65bae6@...> wrote:
> I think I still have the plans for the ESC. I liked the plans but not the rig. I think it would be great to see one built. It would be helpful to know if that hull style worked well or not!
> Chris Curtis
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:
> > Eco, ESC, shallow seas dream, shoal pocket scheme, lickitysplit scram a cruising plan. The plans. They are done then?
> >
The kayak miniature I made of this tracks wickedly well but is a bit of a roller. That's in line with the results plotted for a standard ballast Anhinga.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Cruising%20Canoe/
Mark
On Aug 13, 2012, at 9:39 AM, joe_mapango wrote:
I think I still have the plans for the ESC. I liked the plans but not the rig. I think it would be great to see one built. It would be helpful to know if that hull style worked well or not!
Chris Curtis
I think I still have the plans for the ESC. I liked the plans but not the rig. I think it would be great to see one built. It would be helpful to know if that hull style worked well or not!
Chris Curtis
Chris Curtis
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@> wrote:
> >
> > I did write Bolger about 5 years ago and ask after the Eco. version
> > of this boat. He was not overly encouraging, but offered plans for
> > $350. That is very reasonable, but too much for me to purchase
> > just so as to complete the set. Once one buys plans, there is no
> > telling, they may get built. I like that idea, and think the Eco,.
> > is a striking concept.
>
> Eco, ESC, shallow seas dream, shoal pocket scheme, lickitysplit scram a cruising plan. The plans. They are done then?
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>Eco, ESC, shallow seas dream, shoal pocket scheme, lickitysplit scram a cruising plan. The plans. They are done then?
> I did write Bolger about 5 years ago and ask after the Eco. version
> of this boat. He was not overly encouraging, but offered plans for
> $350. That is very reasonable, but too much for me to purchase
> just so as to complete the set. Once one buys plans, there is no
> telling, they may get built. I like that idea, and think the Eco,.
> is a striking concept.
Hi Thomas,
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
denies them much accomodation room. The beamier hull has the room
but not the high S/L, but if it can "plane" then it can still be
fast. A lot of the "lift" may come from being jacked up on the
slender lee ama.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor"
<proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
> I did write Bolger about 5 years ago and ask after the Eco.version
> of this boat. He was not overly encouraging, but offered plansfor
> $350.Seems high. Was there more design work still to do?
>It's certainly an exciting thought that there could beIsn't it just?
> an Eco. that has been built.
> I think this design is a poor departure point for a multihull. Ithas
> might have some utility where extreme shallow draft is needed. I
> often been said that Farrier designs plane. I have heard thatWell, the slenderness of multis at the WL allows them high S/L, but
> questioned, and it may be true or not. I have a hard time seeing
>how it would be considered an advantage even if true.
denies them much accomodation room. The beamier hull has the room
but not the high S/L, but if it can "plane" then it can still be
fast. A lot of the "lift" may come from being jacked up on the
slender lee ama.
Graeme
Anhingha, for which I have the plans, is not built to the same
proportions as Eeek!. It is a quite a bit wider, because it is
intended to be water ballasted, I think on the Eeek! Platform it
would be 30 inches rather than 24, something like that anyway. I
built what I call Fat Eeek! which is the Anhingha proportions in the
Eeek! length. It is ready to go in the water, and I live next to a
lake, but somehow over the years I have always been too busy to
finish the rig...
The concept seems to have been that the lower stern would allow more
ballast to be carried in this hull form. What failed to be
appreciated until the exercise was tried was that when this hull
shape heels, the buoyancy in the stern is an overturning force, which
seems to somewhat negate the advantages. When a hull of this form
heels to port, the added volume in the stern pulls up on starboard.
It was also hopped that the lower stern would help solve the problem
of running an engine in a double ender.
I did write Bolger about 5 years ago and ask after the Eco. version
of this boat. He was not overly encouraging, but offered plans for
$350. That is very reasonable, but too much for me to purchase just
so as to complete the set. Once one buys plans, there is no telling,
they may get built. I like that idea, and think the Eco,. is a
striking concept. It also comes from the period of his sharpie
design before they left the rails. As with Pointer and Black
Skimmer, ballast once seemed to provide for cheap and interesting
designs, where subsequent efforts with water ballast have not been
well founded. It's certainly an exciting thought that there could be
an Eco. that has been built.
I think this design is a poor departure point for a multihull. It
might have some utility where extreme shallow draft is needed. I has
often been said that Farrier designs plane. I have heard that
questioned, and it may be true or not. I have a hard time seeing how
it would be considered an advantage even if true. A design that
planes needs a lot of energy to keep the hull aloft. The multihull
advantage is that it need not plane to go fast. Farrier is a
brilliant designer, and his earlier smaller boats did show the way to
building very small and cruisable boats. He once sold plans for a
boat that was 18 feet, had 4 or 5 berths, and folded. No longer
offered, but in Bolger terms that's where I see the bang for the
buck. I have sketches for a design that does not try to achieve
anywhere near as much, but is lighter and sleeker, and cheaper to
build. I may some day built her.
If you want to built a small multihull in ply, I recommend several
approaches. Dory, as with Tremolino, the SC 28, and others; V, a
wide "flat" v as used by Bolger and Piver, in the 90-120 range. This
provides easy configuration for beaching, and directional stability,
the 120 v is a little draggy, but gives a fat hull out of the water
for accommodations. Vs don't have chine drag; Beyond that you get
into a multifaceted chine construction that these days is harder and
harder to sustain against the onslaught of improvements in the strip
process.
Another option is stressforming/torturing. But in this size class
one would do well to pull that perennial yacht designer's trick which
is the extra long hull that is really (say) a 16 footer on a 20
footer's waterline. If your design comes out as a "real" 20 footer,
then that is a whole other thing, and maybe not a good idea to have
tried in this method of construction.
I think these small mutis can be really successful in a format where
a person is willing to give a little to get a little. If nothing
else, they end up expensive if one tries to cram too much into the
box. I think the winning materials/construction (with the exception
of the stretched approach mentioned above) are probably strip
planking and stessformed amas if one is thinking tri. On this size
of boat the below water hull that would need to be stripped is a
day's work, and stressformed amas are probably faster to build than
any other type, while high performance.
proportions as Eeek!. It is a quite a bit wider, because it is
intended to be water ballasted, I think on the Eeek! Platform it
would be 30 inches rather than 24, something like that anyway. I
built what I call Fat Eeek! which is the Anhingha proportions in the
Eeek! length. It is ready to go in the water, and I live next to a
lake, but somehow over the years I have always been too busy to
finish the rig...
The concept seems to have been that the lower stern would allow more
ballast to be carried in this hull form. What failed to be
appreciated until the exercise was tried was that when this hull
shape heels, the buoyancy in the stern is an overturning force, which
seems to somewhat negate the advantages. When a hull of this form
heels to port, the added volume in the stern pulls up on starboard.
It was also hopped that the lower stern would help solve the problem
of running an engine in a double ender.
I did write Bolger about 5 years ago and ask after the Eco. version
of this boat. He was not overly encouraging, but offered plans for
$350. That is very reasonable, but too much for me to purchase just
so as to complete the set. Once one buys plans, there is no telling,
they may get built. I like that idea, and think the Eco,. is a
striking concept. It also comes from the period of his sharpie
design before they left the rails. As with Pointer and Black
Skimmer, ballast once seemed to provide for cheap and interesting
designs, where subsequent efforts with water ballast have not been
well founded. It's certainly an exciting thought that there could be
an Eco. that has been built.
I think this design is a poor departure point for a multihull. It
might have some utility where extreme shallow draft is needed. I has
often been said that Farrier designs plane. I have heard that
questioned, and it may be true or not. I have a hard time seeing how
it would be considered an advantage even if true. A design that
planes needs a lot of energy to keep the hull aloft. The multihull
advantage is that it need not plane to go fast. Farrier is a
brilliant designer, and his earlier smaller boats did show the way to
building very small and cruisable boats. He once sold plans for a
boat that was 18 feet, had 4 or 5 berths, and folded. No longer
offered, but in Bolger terms that's where I see the bang for the
buck. I have sketches for a design that does not try to achieve
anywhere near as much, but is lighter and sleeker, and cheaper to
build. I may some day built her.
If you want to built a small multihull in ply, I recommend several
approaches. Dory, as with Tremolino, the SC 28, and others; V, a
wide "flat" v as used by Bolger and Piver, in the 90-120 range. This
provides easy configuration for beaching, and directional stability,
the 120 v is a little draggy, but gives a fat hull out of the water
for accommodations. Vs don't have chine drag; Beyond that you get
into a multifaceted chine construction that these days is harder and
harder to sustain against the onslaught of improvements in the strip
process.
Another option is stressforming/torturing. But in this size class
one would do well to pull that perennial yacht designer's trick which
is the extra long hull that is really (say) a 16 footer on a 20
footer's waterline. If your design comes out as a "real" 20 footer,
then that is a whole other thing, and maybe not a good idea to have
tried in this method of construction.
I think these small mutis can be really successful in a format where
a person is willing to give a little to get a little. If nothing
else, they end up expensive if one tries to cram too much into the
box. I think the winning materials/construction (with the exception
of the stretched approach mentioned above) are probably strip
planking and stessformed amas if one is thinking tri. On this size
of boat the below water hull that would need to be stripped is a
day's work, and stressformed amas are probably faster to build than
any other type, while high performance.
Dave,
thanks for your answers. The bit about the heeling stern going
down... I'm sorry, I confused it with what I think may happen to the
Anhinga hull with water ballast.
"The 34' Proposed Economy Cruiser... Was also built" - You don't
say! Now this is news indeed. The Economy Seagoing Cruiser (ESC) is
kind of like the holy grail, or at least one of them in the
Bolgerverse, and not just to fans but to Bolger himself, I think.
So, the searching... the searching... one was built. This is great
news. I love the idea (extreme shallowness, easy build, economical
to build and cruise, etc) and looks of that boat. I wonder if anyone
in the group is from Seattle and can tell us more?
I bet there are better multi hull shapes than EeeK! too, but I doubt
any are possibly as effective for the simplicity. I thought that the
narrow hull might easily be accellerated to more than hull speed and
then the flat, pointed, aft bottom might easily get it up on the
plane - not exactly similar, but yet similar to the Farrier tri
vaka. Configured as a multi the EeeK! hull could stand up to enough
sail to provide the motive force. What do you think?
Graeme
thanks for your answers. The bit about the heeling stern going
down... I'm sorry, I confused it with what I think may happen to the
Anhinga hull with water ballast.
"The 34' Proposed Economy Cruiser... Was also built" - You don't
say! Now this is news indeed. The Economy Seagoing Cruiser (ESC) is
kind of like the holy grail, or at least one of them in the
Bolgerverse, and not just to fans but to Bolger himself, I think.
So, the searching... the searching... one was built. This is great
news. I love the idea (extreme shallowness, easy build, economical
to build and cruise, etc) and looks of that boat. I wonder if anyone
in the group is from Seattle and can tell us more?
I bet there are better multi hull shapes than EeeK! too, but I doubt
any are possibly as effective for the simplicity. I thought that the
narrow hull might easily be accellerated to more than hull speed and
then the flat, pointed, aft bottom might easily get it up on the
plane - not exactly similar, but yet similar to the Farrier tri
vaka. Configured as a multi the EeeK! hull could stand up to enough
sail to provide the motive force. What do you think?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "alias1719" <alias1719@...> wrote:
>Hi Graeme - Thanks!
>As far as I could tell, she did not go down by the stern when
>heeling. I think her unique underbody shape provided enough aft
>floatation - certainly more than many other double ended canoes.
>The Eeek! design WAS stretched to a longer hull - maybe even twice.
>One was the 23' Anhinga - details of which you can see in the Bolger
>Cartoons groupsite. One was built, that I know of, back in 1989. I
>was told that the 34' Proposed Economy Cruiser (a sketch of which
>is in the Eeek! chapter of "30 Odd Boats") was also built, in
>Seattle. I don't know how these boats performed, but they were
>pretty narrow for cruising boats.
> As a multi, I believe that are many other hull shapes that would be
> superior. I don't think one would need the extra aft volume in a
> multihull - but I'm no naval architect!
> Would I have another one? Sure, assuming I were in the same
>situation. At the time, I wanted a boat just like that one - easy
>to construct, versatile and unique. Nowadays, I would likely prefer
>to build a more traditional looking lapstrake sailing canoe - but
>that's just me. I feel that the only failing with the design was
>the need for ballast (when sailing). Lugging lead or a sandbag
>down to the water just cuts down on the convenience factor of
>having a solo-canoe. Ballast was a staple in sailing canoes of the
>19th century (see W.P. Stephens), but most modern designs don't
>call for it.
>
> Dave
>
Hi Craig,
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, c o'donnell <dadadata@...> wrote:
> "Eeek" was a test hull for Anhinga. Apparently both were
>unsuccessful enough that Bolger never tried the hull form again.
Well, Bolger did say it was OK at the time, and he could reboard
with the specified ballast added. When PCB says something, like
anybody else I think, it has to be taken in context. Here, for a
particular purpose at a later time, he says Eeek! is not much of a
boat, but Peero is recommended. - Did CLC want lead melting as a
part of building? Did CLC specify double paddle? Bolger enjoyed
being able to recline in both. It appears he enjoyed the advantages
of both paddle styles, and the sailing ability of both. He did use
the EeeK! hull form again for Anhinga, so, as he said, it must have
proved alright. And currently Dave is saying the same.
>
> As I said, the "Peero" is his Take II on Eeek, being in his
>opinion a better micro-sailer. (The rig he sketched is much
>like "Queen Mab").
Yes, but in his opinion EeeK! was a good *cruising* canoe... And he
knows what many think of lead melting. (The adding of outrigged, FRP-
encased, foam sponsons, like Gary Lepak did to a similar small
double ender this year, might go a long way towards compensating for
the downside of the tippiness - GL could use oars too, as he placed
rollicks on the sponsons.)
Graeme
Hi Graeme - Thanks!
As far as I could tell, she did not go down by the stern when heeling. I
think her unique underbody shape provided enough aft floatation -
certainly more than many other double ended canoes.
The Eeek! design WAS stretched to a longer hull - maybe even twice. One
was the 23' Anhinga - details of which you can see in the Bolger
Cartoons groupsite. One was built, that I know of, back in 1989. I was
told that the 34' Proposed Economy Cruiser (a sketch of which is in
the Eeek! chapter of "30 Odd Boats") was also built, in Seattle.
I don't know how these boats performed, but they were pretty narrow for
cruising boats.
As a multi, I believe that are many other hull shapes that would be
superior. I don't think one would need the extra aft volume in a
multihull - but I'm no naval architect!
Would I have another one? Sure, assuming I were in the same situation.
At the time, I wanted a boat just like that one - easy to construct,
versatile and unique. Nowadays, I would likely prefer to build a more
traditional looking lapstrake sailing canoe - but that's just me.
I feel that the only failing with the design was the need for ballast
(when sailing). Lugging lead or a sandbag down to the water just cuts
down on the convenience factor of having a solo-canoe. Ballast was a
staple in sailing canoes of the 19th century (see W.P. Stephens), but
most modern designs don't call for it.
Dave
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
As far as I could tell, she did not go down by the stern when heeling. I
think her unique underbody shape provided enough aft floatation -
certainly more than many other double ended canoes.
The Eeek! design WAS stretched to a longer hull - maybe even twice. One
was the 23' Anhinga - details of which you can see in the Bolger
Cartoons groupsite. One was built, that I know of, back in 1989. I was
told that the 34' Proposed Economy Cruiser (a sketch of which is in
the Eeek! chapter of "30 Odd Boats") was also built, in Seattle.
I don't know how these boats performed, but they were pretty narrow for
cruising boats.
As a multi, I believe that are many other hull shapes that would be
superior. I don't think one would need the extra aft volume in a
multihull - but I'm no naval architect!
Would I have another one? Sure, assuming I were in the same situation.
At the time, I wanted a boat just like that one - easy to construct,
versatile and unique. Nowadays, I would likely prefer to build a more
traditional looking lapstrake sailing canoe - but that's just me.
I feel that the only failing with the design was the need for ballast
(when sailing). Lugging lead or a sandbag down to the water just cuts
down on the convenience factor of having a solo-canoe. Ballast was a
staple in sailing canoes of the 19th century (see W.P. Stephens), but
most modern designs don't call for it.
Dave
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Dave,
>
> thanks for your tale. Very much. Eeek! looks as neat in your photo
> as in the book.
>
> A few queries for you:
>
> 1/ Did she go down any by the stern with progressive heeling?
>
> 2/ How do you think Eeek! would perform if stretched to, say, 16 to
> 20ft? And,
>
> 3/ as a multihull - tri, cat or outrigger?
>
> 4/ Would you have another one?
>
> Graeme
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "alias1719" alias1719@ wrote:
> >
> > Since my early boatbuilding days, I was - and still am -
> fascinated
> > by the unique designs and boating philosophy of Phil Bolger.
> > Obviously, many of you know how I feel! Here's just a quick tale
> of
> > one of his, apparently, less popular designs (In fact - except for
> > the original - I've never heard of another one). BTW, I posted the
> > only pic I have of her in the photo section....
>
"Eeek" was a test hull for Anhinga.
Apparently both were unsuccessful enough that Bolger never tried the
hull form again.
As I said, the "Peero" is his Take II on Eeek, being in his opinion a
better micro-sailer. (The rig he sketched is much like "Queen Mab").
Apparently both were unsuccessful enough that Bolger never tried the
hull form again.
As I said, the "Peero" is his Take II on Eeek, being in his opinion a
better micro-sailer. (The rig he sketched is much like "Queen Mab").
On Nov 25, 2007, at 4:12 AM, graeme19121984 wrote:
> Dave,
>
> thanks for your tale. Very much. Eeek! looks as neat in your photo
> as in the book.
>
> A few queries for you:
>
> 1/ Did she go down any by the stern with progressive heeling?
>
> 2/ How do you think Eeek! would perform if stretched to, say, 16 to
> 20ft? And,
>
> 3/ as a multihull - tri, cat or outrigger?
>
> 4/ Would you have another one?
>
> Graeme
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "alias1719" <alias1719@...> wrote:
> >
> > Since my early boatbuilding days, I was - and still am -
> fascinated
> > by the unique designs and boating philosophy of Phil Bolger.
> > Obviously, many of you know how I feel! Here's just a quick tale
> of
> > one of his, apparently, less popular designs (In fact - except for
> > the original - I've never heard of another one). BTW, I posted the
> > only pic I have of her in the photo section....
>
>
>
=== craig o'donnell
dadadata@...
Box 232 Betterton Md 21610
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Dave,
thanks for your tale. Very much. Eeek! looks as neat in your photo
as in the book.
A few queries for you:
1/ Did she go down any by the stern with progressive heeling?
2/ How do you think Eeek! would perform if stretched to, say, 16 to
20ft? And,
3/ as a multihull - tri, cat or outrigger?
4/ Would you have another one?
Graeme
thanks for your tale. Very much. Eeek! looks as neat in your photo
as in the book.
A few queries for you:
1/ Did she go down any by the stern with progressive heeling?
2/ How do you think Eeek! would perform if stretched to, say, 16 to
20ft? And,
3/ as a multihull - tri, cat or outrigger?
4/ Would you have another one?
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "alias1719" <alias1719@...> wrote:
>
> Since my early boatbuilding days, I was - and still am -
fascinated
> by the unique designs and boating philosophy of Phil Bolger.
> Obviously, many of you know how I feel! Here's just a quick tale
of
> one of his, apparently, less popular designs (In fact - except for
> the original - I've never heard of another one). BTW, I posted the
> only pic I have of her in the photo section....
I definitely would have preferred lead, and it would have been
superior, but (pre-internet, for me) I had no clue where to get any.
The sandbag was lighter than the lead, also, which didn't help
stability too much, either.
The lead was supposed to be inside ballast, and actually well aft of
mid-ships (because of the strange bottom configuration).
superior, but (pre-internet, for me) I had no clue where to get any.
The sandbag was lighter than the lead, also, which didn't help
stability too much, either.
The lead was supposed to be inside ballast, and actually well aft of
mid-ships (because of the strange bottom configuration).
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Hallman" <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks I really value 'first hand' sail report post like this,
> especially for famous designs like Eeeek!
>
> I am curious, not having my Eeeek! drawings handy, if the center of
> gravity is affected by using sand (up higher by a few inches) versus
> using lead plate, down lower? Is the lead plate installed midships
> internally? Or, hanging from the bottom?
>
Thanks I really value 'first hand' sail report post like this,
especially for famous designs like Eeeek!
I am curious, not having my Eeeek! drawings handy, if the center of
gravity is affected by using sand (up higher by a few inches) versus
using lead plate, down lower? Is the lead plate installed midships
internally? Or, hanging from the bottom?
especially for famous designs like Eeeek!
I am curious, not having my Eeeek! drawings handy, if the center of
gravity is affected by using sand (up higher by a few inches) versus
using lead plate, down lower? Is the lead plate installed midships
internally? Or, hanging from the bottom?
The "Peero" (see the Cheap Pages) was published as a shareware-
freeware follow-on to Eeeek and Bolger considered it a better design.
It sails well and has all the paddling advantages you mention.
freeware follow-on to Eeeek and Bolger considered it a better design.
It sails well and has all the paddling advantages you mention.
On Nov 23, 2007, at 9:51 PM, alias1719 wrote:
> Since my early boatbuilding days, I was - and still am - fascinated
> by the unique designs and boating philosophy of Phil Bolger.
> Obviously, many of you know how I feel! Here's just a quick tale of
> one of his, apparently, less popular designs (In fact - except for
> the original - I've never heard of another one). BTW, I posted the
> only pic I have of her in the photo section.
>
> My Eeek! saga began in the early 1990's, as I was doing volunteer
> work as a biologist in the Kenai Peninsula of S. Central Alaska.
> Alaska is truly a wonderland of breathtaking outdoor grandeur, and
> everyone should visit. The summers are amazing, and of course, there
> are only a few hours (or none at all, depending on your location) of
> darkness each night. But the winters are just the opposite, and, as
> you're whiling away the seemingly interminable hours of darkness,
> it's easy for the mind to wander. In my case, it wandered a LOT, and
> most often to the warm, sunny South and the joys of building and
> sailing my own boat.
>
> By the time I got off the plane back in warm, sunny, Texas I had
> spent several dark months memorizing boatbuilding books and I was
> very ready to get busy. A week later, all settled in, I was working
> straight from the tiny plans published in Philip C. Bolger's 1982
> book "Thirty Odd Boats," - I was building an Eeek!.
>
> Eeek! is an 11'9" slab sided, plywood sailing canoe with a very
> unique shape. Mr. Bolger says he designed it as the antithesis of
> the dainty sailing canoe designs already available - specifically
> the Piccolo (eeek being the noise a non-piccolo might make....).
> Bolger's canoe is Swede formed, with most of the volume aft of the
> centerline. The ends are very fine, and the flat bottom is very odd
> in that the stern is the deepest point, AND that the rocker only
> curves up towards the bow. Hard to describe and strange to see.
>
> Well, I built one in my living room and on the back porch. It took
> only a couple of weeks, from start to finish. I used 1/4" exterior
> AC plywood, a sabre saw, nails and drywall screws. I covered the
> chines and joints with polyester resin coated fiberglass. I made
> the sail from polytarp, the rudder hardware from screw eyes, and
> melted some old bullets to weight down the leeboard.
>
> Then I took it to the lake! The Eeek! is also odd in that it is
> sailed while lying down on your back! And it needs ballast. I think
> 75+ lbs of lead was recommended. I just bought a bag of playground
> sand at the hardware store, and stuck it in a trash bag instead. It
> made a good backrest, but wasn't much fun lugging to and from the
> car.
>
> Performance: Eeek! really does need ballast. It's extremely tender,
> and you sail it lying down because you also need your weight that
> low. You steer with a push-pull tiller over your shoulder and only
> your head sticks up out of the boat. The cockpit opening is much
> larger than a kayak's, but you are all the way down inside the hull
> and I am very, very happy that I never capsized her. Getting out
> might have been problematic, and getting back in nigh on impossible
> (now, however, I know about paddle floats). She did sail, though,
> and I took her on many a trip across the lake. She wasn't too fast,
> but she would go upwind, tack and jibe with no problems.
>
> As a solo paddling canoe, she came into her own, though! I did have
> some epic sails in her, but my fondest memories are of poking around
> in the flooded woodland waterways below our local dam. She fit
> through the tightest spaces between the trees and the best part was
> surprising an otter. You can do that in any solo canoe, but Eeek!
> can also be sailed, is quick and easy to build and cost (me) less
> than $100. She worked just as Mr. Bolger envisioned. I would not
> recommend her for open water, or even a significant chop, but for
> general messing about, the Eeek! is lots of fun!.
>
> She was exactly what I needed at the time, but, sadly, my Eeek!,
> built in 1993, got her own significant chop about 4 years later. At
> the time I had little patience for anything that wasn't a high-
> performance racing dinghy, so the bit of rot (from leaving it out in
> the weather for all those years), and the distracted life of a grad
> student added up to a final trip to the dumpster - May she rest in
> peace.
>
> Dave Gentry
>
>
>
=== craig o'donnell
dadadata@...
Box 232 Betterton Md 21610
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Since my early boatbuilding days, I was - and still am - fascinated
by the unique designs and boating philosophy of Phil Bolger.
Obviously, many of you know how I feel! Here's just a quick tale of
one of his, apparently, less popular designs (In fact - except for
the original - I've never heard of another one). BTW, I posted the
only pic I have of her in the photo section.
My Eeek! saga began in the early 1990's, as I was doing volunteer
work as a biologist in the Kenai Peninsula of S. Central Alaska.
Alaska is truly a wonderland of breathtaking outdoor grandeur, and
everyone should visit. The summers are amazing, and of course, there
are only a few hours (or none at all, depending on your location) of
darkness each night. But the winters are just the opposite, and, as
you're whiling away the seemingly interminable hours of darkness,
it's easy for the mind to wander. In my case, it wandered a LOT, and
most often to the warm, sunny South and the joys of building and
sailing my own boat.
By the time I got off the plane back in warm, sunny, Texas I had
spent several dark months memorizing boatbuilding books and I was
very ready to get busy. A week later, all settled in, I was working
straight from the tiny plans published in Philip C. Bolger's 1982
book "Thirty Odd Boats," - I was building an Eeek!.
Eeek! is an 11'9" slab sided, plywood sailing canoe with a very
unique shape. Mr. Bolger says he designed it as the antithesis of
the dainty sailing canoe designs already available - specifically
the Piccolo (eeek being the noise a non-piccolo might make....).
Bolger's canoe is Swede formed, with most of the volume aft of the
centerline. The ends are very fine, and the flat bottom is very odd
in that the stern is the deepest point, AND that the rocker only
curves up towards the bow. Hard to describe and strange to see.
Well, I built one in my living room and on the back porch. It took
only a couple of weeks, from start to finish. I used 1/4" exterior
AC plywood, a sabre saw, nails and drywall screws. I covered the
chines and joints with polyester resin coated fiberglass. I made
the sail from polytarp, the rudder hardware from screw eyes, and
melted some old bullets to weight down the leeboard.
Then I took it to the lake! The Eeek! is also odd in that it is
sailed while lying down on your back! And it needs ballast. I think
75+ lbs of lead was recommended. I just bought a bag of playground
sand at the hardware store, and stuck it in a trash bag instead. It
made a good backrest, but wasn't much fun lugging to and from the
car.
Performance: Eeek! really does need ballast. It's extremely tender,
and you sail it lying down because you also need your weight that
low. You steer with a push-pull tiller over your shoulder and only
your head sticks up out of the boat. The cockpit opening is much
larger than a kayak's, but you are all the way down inside the hull
and I am very, very happy that I never capsized her. Getting out
might have been problematic, and getting back in nigh on impossible
(now, however, I know about paddle floats). She did sail, though,
and I took her on many a trip across the lake. She wasn't too fast,
but she would go upwind, tack and jibe with no problems.
As a solo paddling canoe, she came into her own, though! I did have
some epic sails in her, but my fondest memories are of poking around
in the flooded woodland waterways below our local dam. She fit
through the tightest spaces between the trees and the best part was
surprising an otter. You can do that in any solo canoe, but Eeek!
can also be sailed, is quick and easy to build and cost (me) less
than $100. She worked just as Mr. Bolger envisioned. I would not
recommend her for open water, or even a significant chop, but for
general messing about, the Eeek! is lots of fun!.
She was exactly what I needed at the time, but, sadly, my Eeek!,
built in 1993, got her own significant chop about 4 years later. At
the time I had little patience for anything that wasn't a high-
performance racing dinghy, so the bit of rot (from leaving it out in
the weather for all those years), and the distracted life of a grad
student added up to a final trip to the dumpster - May she rest in
peace.
Dave Gentry
by the unique designs and boating philosophy of Phil Bolger.
Obviously, many of you know how I feel! Here's just a quick tale of
one of his, apparently, less popular designs (In fact - except for
the original - I've never heard of another one). BTW, I posted the
only pic I have of her in the photo section.
My Eeek! saga began in the early 1990's, as I was doing volunteer
work as a biologist in the Kenai Peninsula of S. Central Alaska.
Alaska is truly a wonderland of breathtaking outdoor grandeur, and
everyone should visit. The summers are amazing, and of course, there
are only a few hours (or none at all, depending on your location) of
darkness each night. But the winters are just the opposite, and, as
you're whiling away the seemingly interminable hours of darkness,
it's easy for the mind to wander. In my case, it wandered a LOT, and
most often to the warm, sunny South and the joys of building and
sailing my own boat.
By the time I got off the plane back in warm, sunny, Texas I had
spent several dark months memorizing boatbuilding books and I was
very ready to get busy. A week later, all settled in, I was working
straight from the tiny plans published in Philip C. Bolger's 1982
book "Thirty Odd Boats," - I was building an Eeek!.
Eeek! is an 11'9" slab sided, plywood sailing canoe with a very
unique shape. Mr. Bolger says he designed it as the antithesis of
the dainty sailing canoe designs already available - specifically
the Piccolo (eeek being the noise a non-piccolo might make....).
Bolger's canoe is Swede formed, with most of the volume aft of the
centerline. The ends are very fine, and the flat bottom is very odd
in that the stern is the deepest point, AND that the rocker only
curves up towards the bow. Hard to describe and strange to see.
Well, I built one in my living room and on the back porch. It took
only a couple of weeks, from start to finish. I used 1/4" exterior
AC plywood, a sabre saw, nails and drywall screws. I covered the
chines and joints with polyester resin coated fiberglass. I made
the sail from polytarp, the rudder hardware from screw eyes, and
melted some old bullets to weight down the leeboard.
Then I took it to the lake! The Eeek! is also odd in that it is
sailed while lying down on your back! And it needs ballast. I think
75+ lbs of lead was recommended. I just bought a bag of playground
sand at the hardware store, and stuck it in a trash bag instead. It
made a good backrest, but wasn't much fun lugging to and from the
car.
Performance: Eeek! really does need ballast. It's extremely tender,
and you sail it lying down because you also need your weight that
low. You steer with a push-pull tiller over your shoulder and only
your head sticks up out of the boat. The cockpit opening is much
larger than a kayak's, but you are all the way down inside the hull
and I am very, very happy that I never capsized her. Getting out
might have been problematic, and getting back in nigh on impossible
(now, however, I know about paddle floats). She did sail, though,
and I took her on many a trip across the lake. She wasn't too fast,
but she would go upwind, tack and jibe with no problems.
As a solo paddling canoe, she came into her own, though! I did have
some epic sails in her, but my fondest memories are of poking around
in the flooded woodland waterways below our local dam. She fit
through the tightest spaces between the trees and the best part was
surprising an otter. You can do that in any solo canoe, but Eeek!
can also be sailed, is quick and easy to build and cost (me) less
than $100. She worked just as Mr. Bolger envisioned. I would not
recommend her for open water, or even a significant chop, but for
general messing about, the Eeek! is lots of fun!.
She was exactly what I needed at the time, but, sadly, my Eeek!,
built in 1993, got her own significant chop about 4 years later. At
the time I had little patience for anything that wasn't a high-
performance racing dinghy, so the bit of rot (from leaving it out in
the weather for all those years), and the distracted life of a grad
student added up to a final trip to the dumpster - May she rest in
peace.
Dave Gentry