Re: [bolger] Re: Thomaston Galley - rough water query
It has been over 30 years since I built the Galley. However, If I understand your plan to raise the sides and continue an unbroken sheer line to the bow, it should not pose any construction problems. The flare of the sides is constant with very little if any twist. If you raise the forward part and run the planks out until they meet, they will come together at a slight rake. This will probably be easier to build that carving a nose block for the snout.
If you are going this route, I would suggest that you do some drawing on a xerox copy of the plans (I assume you are looking at Payson's book) and perhaps build a model out of posterboard (it is cheap, entertaing, and gives you a 3-d view).
The closest I ever came to rough water was motorboat wakes and the Galley would ride over the first wave and stick the snout into the second sometimes with a dollop of water coming over the coaming. On wakes, it was a minor irritant; it might have been more in true rough water.
V-bottoms gain displacement, but I suspect that with the advent of stitch and glue construction, PCB would cut the bottom of the v off and draw a 5 panel boat today. Michalak has done several in this style. An advantage of the flat bottom is that the boat would dry out upright and you could sleep in it while it was aground.
You might want to take a look at Michalak's Mixer2 to see how this would work.
JohnT
If you are going this route, I would suggest that you do some drawing on a xerox copy of the plans (I assume you are looking at Payson's book) and perhaps build a model out of posterboard (it is cheap, entertaing, and gives you a 3-d view).
The closest I ever came to rough water was motorboat wakes and the Galley would ride over the first wave and stick the snout into the second sometimes with a dollop of water coming over the coaming. On wakes, it was a minor irritant; it might have been more in true rough water.
V-bottoms gain displacement, but I suspect that with the advent of stitch and glue construction, PCB would cut the bottom of the v off and draw a 5 panel boat today. Michalak has done several in this style. An advantage of the flat bottom is that the boat would dry out upright and you could sleep in it while it was aground.
You might want to take a look at Michalak's Mixer2 to see how this would work.
JohnT
----- Original Message -----
From: graeme19121984
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 6:42 AM
Subject: [bolger] Re: Thomaston Galley - rough water query
John, thanks for your comments. IIRC you did build and use one,
didn't you.
I agreee with you on the Michalak designs you mention. Robote, too,
looks akin to the TG, at least to my eye. It's performed well in
rough open water distance rowing events, and seems to me it would
have it over the standard TG mainly just in the bow. Robote has about
the same beam and V-bottomed draft as TG, and some have put a small
sail on her, but I think it would be stretching things to add an
outboard.
If my recollection of your building a Thomaston Galley is indeed
correct, would you say from that experience how easy/difficult it may
be to add height to the bow by cutting and fitting a wider strake on
the building jig? Perhaps there is an unobvious twist to the plank as
it curves around the bow that may be troublesome?
I don't like to fiddle with the Master's design, it's just that with
it being reputably so uncommonly good at all three modes of
propulsion it strikes me that it would make a brilliant camp/beach
cruiser for semi-protected waters if a bit more rough water
capability were found. Such a cruiser would lack the amenity of being
slept in comfortably when dragged up a beach, or stranded by tide,
however I feel this deficit in the V-bottom would more than be
compensated for by the easy, enjoyable rowing.
Cheers
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John and Kathy Trussell"
<jtrussell2@...> wrote:
>
> Aside from the obvious--if you want a rough water row boat it might
be better to start with one of PCB's other designs--raising the sides
of the boat forwaed to eliminate the "snout" would improve rough
water capability. If you want to see what this might look like,
check out Jim Michalak's Roar and Vireo designs. These are pure
rowing boats and too narrow, particularly aft, to sail or support a
motor, but the profile is close to what you envision.
>
> Have fun.
>
> JohnT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: graeme19121984
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:24 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Thomaston Galley - rough water query
>
>
> Writing on the LIGHT DORY TYPE V in "Small Boats" PCB says that
he's
> seen several attempts to arrange motors and sailing rigs on boats
of
> this type (generally good pulling, or lightened "clipper" types).
He
> says the SEA HAWK DORY SKIFF and FEATHERWIND respectively show
what
> he thought should be an outboard and sailing version. He says
that
> the THOMASTON GALLEY shows how far out he thinks you must go to
> combine any two functions efficiently, but even then he could not
> save its rough water ability.
>
> IIRC I got the impression he mostly complained how cold water
came
> blown back over the bow when rowing into wind and chop.
>
> Questions:
>
> If the topsides were raised, how much I don't know - maybe six,
or
> maybe sixteen inches - including all the way forward to the bow,
> would this grant it "rough" water ability? (Oar ports of course.
And
> rough not surf!)
>
> The advantage of the low bow not being blown off may be
compromised
> somewhat, but then this is an issue with the esteemed Light Dory
> types too, isn't it?
>
> OTH PCB said TG could be trimmed down by the stern for a
tolerable
> chop under power or sail. This raised the rough water problem low
> bow. If rowlocks were sited further aft for a solo crew, there
seems
> some 2ft, wouldn't this also raise the bow enough under oars?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date: 2/9/2008 11:54 AM
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
John, thanks for your comments. IIRC you did build and use one,
didn't you.
I agreee with you on the Michalak designs you mention. Robote, too,
looks akin to the TG, at least to my eye. It's performed well in
rough open water distance rowing events, and seems to me it would
have it over the standard TG mainly just in the bow. Robote has about
the same beam and V-bottomed draft as TG, and some have put a small
sail on her, but I think it would be stretching things to add an
outboard.
If my recollection of your building a Thomaston Galley is indeed
correct, would you say from that experience how easy/difficult it may
be to add height to the bow by cutting and fitting a wider strake on
the building jig? Perhaps there is an unobvious twist to the plank as
it curves around the bow that may be troublesome?
I don't like to fiddle with the Master's design, it's just that with
it being reputably so uncommonly good at all three modes of
propulsion it strikes me that it would make a brilliant camp/beach
cruiser for semi-protected waters if a bit more rough water
capability were found. Such a cruiser would lack the amenity of being
slept in comfortably when dragged up a beach, or stranded by tide,
however I feel this deficit in the V-bottom would more than be
compensated for by the easy, enjoyable rowing.
Cheers
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John and Kathy Trussell"
<jtrussell2@...> wrote:
of the boat forwaed to eliminate the "snout" would improve rough
water capability. If you want to see what this might look like,
check out Jim Michalak's Roar and Vireo designs. These are pure
rowing boats and too narrow, particularly aft, to sail or support a
motor, but the profile is close to what you envision.
didn't you.
I agreee with you on the Michalak designs you mention. Robote, too,
looks akin to the TG, at least to my eye. It's performed well in
rough open water distance rowing events, and seems to me it would
have it over the standard TG mainly just in the bow. Robote has about
the same beam and V-bottomed draft as TG, and some have put a small
sail on her, but I think it would be stretching things to add an
outboard.
If my recollection of your building a Thomaston Galley is indeed
correct, would you say from that experience how easy/difficult it may
be to add height to the bow by cutting and fitting a wider strake on
the building jig? Perhaps there is an unobvious twist to the plank as
it curves around the bow that may be troublesome?
I don't like to fiddle with the Master's design, it's just that with
it being reputably so uncommonly good at all three modes of
propulsion it strikes me that it would make a brilliant camp/beach
cruiser for semi-protected waters if a bit more rough water
capability were found. Such a cruiser would lack the amenity of being
slept in comfortably when dragged up a beach, or stranded by tide,
however I feel this deficit in the V-bottom would more than be
compensated for by the easy, enjoyable rowing.
Cheers
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John and Kathy Trussell"
<jtrussell2@...> wrote:
>be better to start with one of PCB's other designs--raising the sides
> Aside from the obvious--if you want a rough water row boat it might
of the boat forwaed to eliminate the "snout" would improve rough
water capability. If you want to see what this might look like,
check out Jim Michalak's Roar and Vireo designs. These are pure
rowing boats and too narrow, particularly aft, to sail or support a
motor, but the profile is close to what you envision.
>he's
> Have fun.
>
> JohnT
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: graeme19121984
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:24 AM
> Subject: [bolger] Thomaston Galley - rough water query
>
>
> Writing on the LIGHT DORY TYPE V in "Small Boats" PCB says that
> seen several attempts to arrange motors and sailing rigs on boatsof
> this type (generally good pulling, or lightened "clipper" types).He
> says the SEA HAWK DORY SKIFF and FEATHERWIND respectively showwhat
> he thought should be an outboard and sailing version. He saysthat
> the THOMASTON GALLEY shows how far out he thinks you must go tocame
> combine any two functions efficiently, but even then he could not
> save its rough water ability.
>
> IIRC I got the impression he mostly complained how cold water
> blown back over the bow when rowing into wind and chop.or
>
> Questions:
>
> If the topsides were raised, how much I don't know - maybe six,
> maybe sixteen inches - including all the way forward to the bow,And
> would this grant it "rough" water ability? (Oar ports of course.
> rough not surf!)compromised
>
> The advantage of the low bow not being blown off may be
> somewhat, but then this is an issue with the esteemed Light Dorytolerable
> types too, isn't it?
>
> OTH PCB said TG could be trimmed down by the stern for a
> chop under power or sail. This raised the rough water problem lowseems
> bow. If rowlocks were sited further aft for a solo crew, there
> some 2ft, wouldn't this also raise the bow enough under oars?
Aside from the obvious--if you want a rough water row boat it might be better to start with one of PCB's other designs--raising the sides of the boat forwaed to eliminate the "snout" would improve rough water capability. If you want to see what this might look like, check out Jim Michalak's Roar and Vireo designs. These are pure rowing boats and too narrow, particularly aft, to sail or support a motor, but the profile is close to what you envision.
Have fun.
JohnT
Have fun.
JohnT
----- Original Message -----
From: graeme19121984
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:24 AM
Subject: [bolger] Thomaston Galley - rough water query
Writing on the LIGHT DORY TYPE V in "Small Boats" PCB says that he's
seen several attempts to arrange motors and sailing rigs on boats of
this type (generally good pulling, or lightened "clipper" types). He
says the SEA HAWK DORY SKIFF and FEATHERWIND respectively show what
he thought should be an outboard and sailing version. He says that
the THOMASTON GALLEY shows how far out he thinks you must go to
combine any two functions efficiently, but even then he could not
save its rough water ability.
IIRC I got the impression he mostly complained how cold water came
blown back over the bow when rowing into wind and chop.
Questions:
If the topsides were raised, how much I don't know - maybe six, or
maybe sixteen inches - including all the way forward to the bow,
would this grant it "rough" water ability? (Oar ports of course. And
rough not surf!)
The advantage of the low bow not being blown off may be compromised
somewhat, but then this is an issue with the esteemed Light Dory
types too, isn't it?
OTH PCB said TG could be trimmed down by the stern for a tolerable
chop under power or sail. This raised the rough water problem low
bow. If rowlocks were sited further aft for a solo crew, there seems
some 2ft, wouldn't this also raise the bow enough under oars?
Graeme
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.21/1266 - Release Date: 2/8/2008 10:06 AM
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Writing on the LIGHT DORY TYPE V in "Small Boats" PCB says that he's
seen several attempts to arrange motors and sailing rigs on boats of
this type (generally good pulling, or lightened "clipper" types). He
says the SEA HAWK DORY SKIFF and FEATHERWIND respectively show what
he thought should be an outboard and sailing version. He says that
the THOMASTON GALLEY shows how far out he thinks you must go to
combine any two functions efficiently, but even then he could not
save its rough water ability.
IIRC I got the impression he mostly complained how cold water came
blown back over the bow when rowing into wind and chop.
Questions:
If the topsides were raised, how much I don't know - maybe six, or
maybe sixteen inches - including all the way forward to the bow,
would this grant it "rough" water ability? (Oar ports of course. And
rough not surf!)
The advantage of the low bow not being blown off may be compromised
somewhat, but then this is an issue with the esteemed Light Dory
types too, isn't it?
OTH PCB said TG could be trimmed down by the stern for a tolerable
chop under power or sail. This raised the rough water problem low
bow. If rowlocks were sited further aft for a solo crew, there seems
some 2ft, wouldn't this also raise the bow enough under oars?
Graeme
seen several attempts to arrange motors and sailing rigs on boats of
this type (generally good pulling, or lightened "clipper" types). He
says the SEA HAWK DORY SKIFF and FEATHERWIND respectively show what
he thought should be an outboard and sailing version. He says that
the THOMASTON GALLEY shows how far out he thinks you must go to
combine any two functions efficiently, but even then he could not
save its rough water ability.
IIRC I got the impression he mostly complained how cold water came
blown back over the bow when rowing into wind and chop.
Questions:
If the topsides were raised, how much I don't know - maybe six, or
maybe sixteen inches - including all the way forward to the bow,
would this grant it "rough" water ability? (Oar ports of course. And
rough not surf!)
The advantage of the low bow not being blown off may be compromised
somewhat, but then this is an issue with the esteemed Light Dory
types too, isn't it?
OTH PCB said TG could be trimmed down by the stern for a tolerable
chop under power or sail. This raised the rough water problem low
bow. If rowlocks were sited further aft for a solo crew, there seems
some 2ft, wouldn't this also raise the bow enough under oars?
Graeme