Re: 11'6" Cruising Canoe
That's Michael Storer's "Beth". It's pretty much a square sided canoe with some rocker.
Dave
Dave
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a photo-stream of a sailing canoe running in a RAID in Poland. There are similarities to EEEK, and Anhinga (Sandy Bottoms).
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/10196268@N05/4712161251/in/set-72157624177531575/
>
> The boaat appears to move well in really light air.
>
> Don
>
Here is a photo-stream of a sailing canoe running in a RAID in Poland. There are similarities to EEEK, and Anhinga (Sandy Bottoms).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10196268@N05/4712161251/in/set-72157624177531575/
The boaat appears to move well in really light air.
Don
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10196268@N05/4712161251/in/set-72157624177531575/
The boaat appears to move well in really light air.
Don
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
Graeme
>How did Fat Eeek! go? Someone here, name eludes, is building a stretched (18'?) Eeek!
>
> > Hmm, I built, sailed and paddled what was apparently the second and, so
> > far, final example of an Eeek! It was a real boat that one could use -
> > and use it I did. It worked just dandy.
> >
> > That's not to say that an ama (or two) wouldn't have been an improvement
> > - at least while sailing.
> >
> > There's a pic of my Eeek! in the files section, if anyone is interested.
> >
> > Dave Gentry
> >
>
> I built a Fat Eeek! at 30 inch beam which is the same proportion as Anhinga. I don't recall any mention of an ama from Bolger. But he wrote a lot more than I read.
>Pointy-sterned dead-flat run Sitka "rule cheats" in the transition zone from displacement to full planing. Why not then a similar unballasted outrigger sailing type? Why not actually plane under sufficient sail with sufficient outrigger floatation, if built light (and not long distance liveaboard cruising inboard dieseled)? Most multis slice through water, but some also speedy, plane...
> I don't think this design makes much sense as a hull for a tacking proa or tri. I can see the desire to replace the ballast with a float, but this is a poor hull for the purposed. Bolger has imposed a number of sharpie hulls on multihull planforms. Conceptually, a sharpie improves it's cutwater by heeling, but even on the Pacific tack, a proa will heel little. Meanwhile, the immersed stern will achieve some of it's potential displacement without adversely affecting stability, as in Eeek! and others. But it will not be as efficient as a more conventional transom. The hull begs to be built with no bow overhang and a bit more depth in the forefoot, while the transom begs for less. But then it wouldn't be an Eeek!
>
Graeme
> Hmm, I built, sailed and paddled what was apparently the second and, soI built a Fat Eeek! at 30 inch beam which is the same proportion as Anhinga. I don't recall any mention of an ama from Bolger. But he wrote a lot more than I read.
> far, final example of an Eeek! It was a real boat that one could use -
> and use it I did. It worked just dandy.
>
> That's not to say that an ama (or two) wouldn't have been an improvement
> - at least while sailing.
>
> There's a pic of my Eeek! in the files section, if anyone is interested.
>
> Dave Gentry
>
I don't think this design makes much sense as a hull for a tacking proa or tri. I can see the desire to replace the ballast with a float, but this is a poor hull for the purposed. Bolger has imposed a number of sharpie hulls on multihull planforms. Conceptually, a sharpie improves it's cutwater by heeling, but even on the Pacific tack, a proa will heel little. Meanwhile, the immersed stern will achieve some of it's potential displacement without adversely affecting stability, as in Eeek! and others. But it will not be as efficient as a more conventional transom. The hull begs to be built with no bow overhang and a bit more depth in the forefoot, while the transom begs for less. But then it wouldn't be an Eeek!
I too think it a real boat.
"deference to sheer convention": the vaka (not sure of the ama) has a
conventional curving sheer under a Minimum Kayak-like cockpit
coaming; unlike the Eeek! in which tradition is dispensed with, going
all the way to the pointy square box, or nearly so, with only a nod
to nautical norms via some paint trickery.
The sheer and cut down sides do allow for the double paddle some may
prefer; given there's enough space between the iakos. All up, it may
be a bit lighter than Eeek!, and more easily cartopped when broken
down.
I'm not sure the crew would contribute much to stability in the ESC -
displacement was listed at a massive 8300lbs. I can never figure
where PCB gets all that weight from - it seems much out of proportion
to the rest of the scale-ups from Eeek! and Anhinga and doesn't match
the sketched waterline as shown. Much more than an AS29 too! But then
the listed displacement of AS29 on her supposed sailing waterline can
only be close to light ship displacement; to sail well the skipper
would have to be as weight conscious as any similar LOA multi
skipper. Not too sure about some of PCB's displacements for cruisers -
- Wish II is another for instance.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...>
wrote:
"deference to sheer convention": the vaka (not sure of the ama) has a
conventional curving sheer under a Minimum Kayak-like cockpit
coaming; unlike the Eeek! in which tradition is dispensed with, going
all the way to the pointy square box, or nearly so, with only a nod
to nautical norms via some paint trickery.
The sheer and cut down sides do allow for the double paddle some may
prefer; given there's enough space between the iakos. All up, it may
be a bit lighter than Eeek!, and more easily cartopped when broken
down.
I'm not sure the crew would contribute much to stability in the ESC -
displacement was listed at a massive 8300lbs. I can never figure
where PCB gets all that weight from - it seems much out of proportion
to the rest of the scale-ups from Eeek! and Anhinga and doesn't match
the sketched waterline as shown. Much more than an AS29 too! But then
the listed displacement of AS29 on her supposed sailing waterline can
only be close to light ship displacement; to sail well the skipper
would have to be as weight conscious as any similar LOA multi
skipper. Not too sure about some of PCB's displacements for cruisers -
- Wish II is another for instance.
Graeme
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...>
wrote:
>boat.
> By deference to convention, you mean adding the ama? I view this
> canoe as a real boat one could use. I recall reading the essay re
> EEEK!, and realizing it was intended as a scale model of a larger
> design, built for "proof of concept", than a practical, working
> Thus, the instability when the sailor sat up was acceptable because
> the crew of the full scale version would be expected to manage their
> contribution to CG better. I've had similar problems with kayaks
> because of my height and weight.
>
> I think bolger may have mentioned adding an ama to Eeek!
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Looks really functional, notice the family lineage with Eeek!
> > >
> > >
> > But... at a minimum, the deference to sheer convention?
> >
> > Graeme
> >
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...>
wrote:
far, final example of an Eeek! It was a real boat that one could use -
and use it I did. It worked just dandy.
That's not to say that an ama (or two) wouldn't have been an improvement
- at least while sailing.
There's a pic of my Eeek! in the files section, if anyone is interested.
Dave Gentry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
wrote:
>canoe as a real boat one could use. I recall reading the essay
> By deference to convention, you mean adding the ama? I view >this
>re EEEK!, and realizing it was intended as a scale model of a largerHmm, I built, sailed and paddled what was apparently the second and, so
> design, built for "proof of concept", than a practical, working boat.
far, final example of an Eeek! It was a real boat that one could use -
and use it I did. It worked just dandy.
That's not to say that an ama (or two) wouldn't have been an improvement
- at least while sailing.
There's a pic of my Eeek! in the files section, if anyone is interested.
Dave Gentry
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
By deference to convention, you mean adding the ama? I view this
canoe as a real boat one could use. I recall reading the essay re
EEEK!, and realizing it was intended as a scale model of a larger
design, built for "proof of concept", than a practical, working boat.
Thus, the instability when the sailor sat up was acceptable because
the crew of the full scale version would be expected to manage their
contribution to CG better. I've had similar problems with kayaks
because of my height and weight.
I think bolger may have mentioned adding an ama to Eeek!
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
canoe as a real boat one could use. I recall reading the essay re
EEEK!, and realizing it was intended as a scale model of a larger
design, built for "proof of concept", than a practical, working boat.
Thus, the instability when the sailor sat up was acceptable because
the crew of the full scale version would be expected to manage their
contribution to CG better. I've had similar problems with kayaks
because of my height and weight.
I think bolger may have mentioned adding an ama to Eeek!
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "graeme19121984" <graeme19121984@...>
wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@> wrote:
> >
> > Looks really functional, notice the family lineage with Eeek!
> >
> >
> But... at a minimum, the deference to sheer convention?
>
> Graeme
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
that.)
But... at a minimum, the deference to sheer convention?
Graeme
>Especially that same bottom. And on the ama also! (Quite interesting
> Here is a isometric study of the 11'6" Bolger Cruising Canoe
>
>http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/3226042480/
>
> Looks really functional, notice the family lineage with Eeek!
>
that.)
But... at a minimum, the deference to sheer convention?
Graeme
Small Boat Journal #45
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Justin M <jmeddock@...> wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> Where and when was that design shown? (MAIB, Small Boat Journal, etc)
>
> Justin
Bruce,
Where and when was that design shown? (MAIB, Small Boat Journal, etc)
Justin
Where and when was that design shown? (MAIB, Small Boat Journal, etc)
Justin
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
>
> Here is a isometric study of the 11'6" Bolger Cruising Canoe
>
>http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/3226042480/
>
> Looks really functional, notice the family lineage with Eeek!
>
Here is a isometric study of the 11'6" Bolger Cruising Canoe
http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/3226042480/
Looks really functional, notice the family lineage with Eeek!
http://flickr.com/photos/hallman/3226042480/
Looks really functional, notice the family lineage with Eeek!