Re: [bolger]next boats was Re: Illinois Isometrics
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:24 AM, <echo172@...> wrote:
lap straked Shivaree even easier.
I forget if you want a trailer sailer, but if not, a 'quick build'
Bolger sailboat that fits your which list could be the Burgundy.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&ss=2&w=all&q=bolgerboats+burgundy&m=tags
>If you feel up for strip planking or cold molding, you should find the
>
> Thanks, will have a look. I want to get started on this, I'm a fast builder,
> but it takes me forever to pick something. I see sailboats I love, like the
> one in the planters peanut commercial. Not really a backyard project though.
> The slicer with a head was actually considered last year. I wrote to Mr B
> and bought plans for shivaree instead. Too complicated for my skill level at
> that time. I want strip plank or cold molded for that hull.
> Thanks,
> Bruce in NJ
lap straked Shivaree even easier.
I forget if you want a trailer sailer, but if not, a 'quick build'
Bolger sailboat that fits your which list could be the Burgundy.
http://www.flickr.com/search/?s=int&ss=2&w=all&q=bolgerboats+burgundy&m=tags
Thanks, will have a look. I want to get started on this, I'm a fast builder, but it takes me forever to pick something. I see sailboats I love, like the one in the planters peanut commercial. Not really a backyard project though. The slicer with a head was actually considered last year. I wrote to Mr B and bought plans for shivaree instead. Too complicated for my skill level at that time. I want strip plank or cold molded for that hull.
Thanks,
Bruce in NJ
Thanks,
Bruce in NJ
----- Original Message -----
From: adventures_in_astrophotography
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:42:48 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [bolger] Re: Illinois Isometrics
Hi Bruce,
> I am looking for my next boat(s) to build. I would like a super sexy looking sail boat, you know, jaw dropping lines, timeless style, classic, lots of brightwork.
>
> I also have a 40 hp short shaft motor I want to build a long and lean hull for. Fishing only, built around a toilet for my lady. I have some ideas of my own and want to fold up some 9mm for the power project.
>
> Any ideas for the sail version that won't take years? I build fast but loose interest faster. Ohh, it must deal with the ocean.
You might look in the cartoon or study plan groups' files sections for ideas. Search Yahoo groups for "bolger" and you should find these groups.
For the sailboat, take a look at Summer Ease (also incorrectly called Summer Breeze in some places). Bolger told me none had been built, and I have been sorely tempted to build this one.
For the powerboat, look at the Fisherman's Launch in Bolger's book Boats With An Open Mind. It could be built in lapstrake plywood. You could also rig a toilet on Slicer (in the same book), but I'm not sure if it's considered an ocean-going dayboat or not.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Bruce,
For the sailboat, take a look at Summer Ease (also incorrectly called Summer Breeze in some places). Bolger told me none had been built, and I have been sorely tempted to build this one.
For the powerboat, look at the Fisherman's Launch in Bolger's book Boats With An Open Mind. It could be built in lapstrake plywood. You could also rig a toilet on Slicer (in the same book), but I'm not sure if it's considered an ocean-going dayboat or not.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
> I am looking for my next boat(s) to build. I would like a super sexy looking sail boat, you know, jaw dropping lines, timeless style, classic, lots of brightwork.You might look in the cartoon or study plan groups' files sections for ideas. Search Yahoo groups for "bolger" and you should find these groups.
>
> I also have a 40 hp short shaft motor I want to build a long and lean hull for. Fishing only, built around a toilet for my lady. I have some ideas of my own and want to fold up some 9mm for the power project.
>
> Any ideas for the sail version that won't take years? I build fast but loose interest faster. Ohh, it must deal with the ocean.
For the sailboat, take a look at Summer Ease (also incorrectly called Summer Breeze in some places). Bolger told me none had been built, and I have been sorely tempted to build this one.
For the powerboat, look at the Fisherman's Launch in Bolger's book Boats With An Open Mind. It could be built in lapstrake plywood. You could also rig a toilet on Slicer (in the same book), but I'm not sure if it's considered an ocean-going dayboat or not.
Jon Kolb
www.kolbsadventures.com/boatbuilding_index.htm
I am looking for my next boat(s) to build. I would like a super sexy looking sail boat, you know, jaw dropping lines, timeless style, classic, lots of brightwork.
I also have a 40 hp short shaft motor I want to build a long and lean hull for. Fishing only, built around a toilet for my lady. I have some ideas of my own and want to fold up some 9mm for the power project.
Any ideas for the sail version that won't take years? I build fast but loose interest faster. Ohh, it must deal with the ocean.
Thanks
Bruce in NJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I also have a 40 hp short shaft motor I want to build a long and lean hull for. Fishing only, built around a toilet for my lady. I have some ideas of my own and want to fold up some 9mm for the power project.
Any ideas for the sail version that won't take years? I build fast but loose interest faster. Ohh, it must deal with the ocean.
Thanks
Bruce in NJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stefan Probst wrote:
cement boat. If there is an expansion difference the mesh can absorb
it likely. I heard someone say a ferro cement boat is a steel boat
coated in cement.
Doug
>This likely one of, but not all of, the reasons for wire mesh in a ferro
>
> I checked the buckling of a steel - core - steel sandwich due to
> temperature differences on the two surfaces.
>
> Assuming:
> - max. temperature difference of 30 K,
> e.g. when the sun shines onto a side.
> Means: the panel would buckle outward.
> - only one axis; the panel is 1 m wide
>
> Result:
> The outside skin would get about 0.36 mm longer for those 30 K.
>
> Case 1: The edges of the outside skin are fixed at 1 m distance,
> e.g. by a strong frame.
> Result: The outside skin tries to create an arc of about 11.6 mm
> height (!!).
> That is quite much. The core will surely not allow that. Means: if the
> inside skin stays flat (e.g. due to fixation to frames), most likely
> the core would fail by getting torn apart.
>
> Case 2: The edges of the outside skin are not fixed, but the skin is
> allowed to expand and the inside skin is allowed to bend a bit.
> The core is 2.5 cm thick (one inch).
> Result a): If the core is very stiff against sheer forces (i.e. the
> outer side of the core doesn't allow this 0.36 mm expansion over 1 m
> width with a fixed inside length), then the result is an arc of the
> whole sandwich with only about 1.8 mm height. If the core thickness is
> doubled, the height of the arc gets half.
> Result b): If the core is flexible enough to get streched on one
> surface similar to steel, while the other surface stays at constant
> length (easier with thicker core), then the panel would stay flat.
>
> Conclusions ("Lessons Learnt"):
> If my math is correct ... and my English understandable ;)
>
> 1) It is ok to fix the edges of the inner (cool side) skin of the
> panel to a frame that doesn't expand.
> 2) The edges of the outer (heatable) skin should be mounted only in
> such a way that small expansions (say 0.4 mm per m for both sides
> combined) are permissible, e.g. by using no bolts, screws, epoxy, but
> only silicone glue.
> 3) This in turn means that only the inside skin of the panel can bear
> compression or pulling forces.
> 4) Thicker core creates less problems, both in Case 2a) and 2b).
> 5) If possible avoid large temperature differences, e.g. by a thin
> layer of wood at the "sunny side".
>
> So far about construction details.
>
> But I am still unsure about the dimensions, e.g. what steel thickness
> would be needed on the outside of the sandwich to withstand common
> puncture situations, i.e. forces/pressures....
>
> Comments?
>
> Cheers,
> Stefan
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>, I wrote:
> > Regarding temperature:
>
> > If there is a temperature difference between inside and outside,
> > i.e. the inside and outside skins would expand at a different rate,
> > the panel would bend as a consequence.
> > In an low-angle circle segment (i.e. a flat arc), even low changes
> > in length result in significant changes in radius.
> > (to illustrate this: put a sheet of paper on the table
> > and move the edges just a mm together and see how much
> > the middle buckles upwards).
> >
> > I'll check how much that would be with temperatures
> > that we encounter here.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Stefan
>
>
cement boat. If there is an expansion difference the mesh can absorb
it likely. I heard someone say a ferro cement boat is a steel boat
coated in cement.
Doug
I checked the buckling of a steel - core - steel sandwich due to temperature differences on the two surfaces.
Assuming:
- max. temperature difference of 30 K,
e.g. when the sun shines onto a side.
Means: the panel would buckle outward.
- only one axis; the panel is 1 m wide
Result:
The outside skin would get about 0.36 mm longer for those 30 K.
Case 1: The edges of the outside skin are fixed at 1 m distance,
e.g. by a strong frame.
Result: The outside skin tries to create an arc of about 11.6 mm height (!!).
That is quite much. The core will surely not allow that. Means: if the inside skin stays flat (e.g. due to fixation to frames), most likely the core would fail by getting torn apart.
Case 2: The edges of the outside skin are not fixed, but the skin is allowed to expand and the inside skin is allowed to bend a bit.
The core is 2.5 cm thick (one inch).
Result a): If the core is very stiff against sheer forces (i.e. the outer side of the core doesn't allow this 0.36 mm expansion over 1 m width with a fixed inside length), then the result is an arc of the whole sandwich with only about 1.8 mm height. If the core thickness is doubled, the height of the arc gets half.
Result b): If the core is flexible enough to get streched on one surface similar to steel, while the other surface stays at constant length (easier with thicker core), then the panel would stay flat.
Conclusions ("Lessons Learnt"):
If my math is correct ... and my English understandable ;)
1) It is ok to fix the edges of the inner (cool side) skin of the panel to a frame that doesn't expand.
2) The edges of the outer (heatable) skin should be mounted only in such a way that small expansions (say 0.4 mm per m for both sides combined) are permissible, e.g. by using no bolts, screws, epoxy, but only silicone glue.
3) This in turn means that only the inside skin of the panel can bear compression or pulling forces.
4) Thicker core creates less problems, both in Case 2a) and 2b).
5) If possible avoid large temperature differences, e.g. by a thin layer of wood at the "sunny side".
So far about construction details.
But I am still unsure about the dimensions, e.g. what steel thickness would be needed on the outside of the sandwich to withstand common puncture situations, i.e. forces/pressures....
Comments?
Cheers,
Stefan
Assuming:
- max. temperature difference of 30 K,
e.g. when the sun shines onto a side.
Means: the panel would buckle outward.
- only one axis; the panel is 1 m wide
Result:
The outside skin would get about 0.36 mm longer for those 30 K.
Case 1: The edges of the outside skin are fixed at 1 m distance,
e.g. by a strong frame.
Result: The outside skin tries to create an arc of about 11.6 mm height (!!).
That is quite much. The core will surely not allow that. Means: if the inside skin stays flat (e.g. due to fixation to frames), most likely the core would fail by getting torn apart.
Case 2: The edges of the outside skin are not fixed, but the skin is allowed to expand and the inside skin is allowed to bend a bit.
The core is 2.5 cm thick (one inch).
Result a): If the core is very stiff against sheer forces (i.e. the outer side of the core doesn't allow this 0.36 mm expansion over 1 m width with a fixed inside length), then the result is an arc of the whole sandwich with only about 1.8 mm height. If the core thickness is doubled, the height of the arc gets half.
Result b): If the core is flexible enough to get streched on one surface similar to steel, while the other surface stays at constant length (easier with thicker core), then the panel would stay flat.
Conclusions ("Lessons Learnt"):
If my math is correct ... and my English understandable ;)
1) It is ok to fix the edges of the inner (cool side) skin of the panel to a frame that doesn't expand.
2) The edges of the outer (heatable) skin should be mounted only in such a way that small expansions (say 0.4 mm per m for both sides combined) are permissible, e.g. by using no bolts, screws, epoxy, but only silicone glue.
3) This in turn means that only the inside skin of the panel can bear compression or pulling forces.
4) Thicker core creates less problems, both in Case 2a) and 2b).
5) If possible avoid large temperature differences, e.g. by a thin layer of wood at the "sunny side".
So far about construction details.
But I am still unsure about the dimensions, e.g. what steel thickness would be needed on the outside of the sandwich to withstand common puncture situations, i.e. forces/pressures....
Comments?
Cheers,
Stefan
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, I wrote:
> Regarding temperature:
> If there is a temperature difference between inside and outside,
> i.e. the inside and outside skins would expand at a different rate,
> the panel would bend as a consequence.
> In an low-angle circle segment (i.e. a flat arc), even low changes
> in length result in significant changes in radius.
> (to illustrate this: put a sheet of paper on the table
> and move the edges just a mm together and see how much
> the middle buckles upwards).
>
> I'll check how much that would be with temperatures
> that we encounter here.
>
> Cheers,
> Stefan
I think it may be in cartoons, the files section, LARGE Bolger boats but I'm not sure and I find the Yahoo system lack of searchability frustrating.
I've got it on my computer if it is needed again.
Don
I've got it on my computer if it is needed again.
Don
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
>
> Where in the files is the MAIB article on the Illinois, I put it there
> and can't find it.
>
> HJ
Bruce,
I in fact agree with you and Bolger implies agreement. IMO Illinois as designed but with more power, would be terrific as a river cruiser and, with appropriate care, serve well on ICWs, etc. IMO a pair of 70-90 hp 4 strokes would be ideal. They could be used individually or together when the power was needed.
I was trying to convey PB&F's intent for the design as expressed in the essay.
Don
I in fact agree with you and Bolger implies agreement. IMO Illinois as designed but with more power, would be terrific as a river cruiser and, with appropriate care, serve well on ICWs, etc. IMO a pair of 70-90 hp 4 strokes would be ideal. They could be used individually or together when the power was needed.
I was trying to convey PB&F's intent for the design as expressed in the essay.
Don
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
>
>......I think I have absorbed a few things, and my opinion
> is different. Illinois is a 'real boat', in my opinion, with the
> sometime problem that in certain wave heights and directions, that the
> outboard motor would pitch out of the water. I think she would still
> make a very capable boat in rivers, bays, and elsewhere as long as you
> paid prudent attention and were willing to wait out adverse weather.
>
Bob,
thanks for comments.
Regarding minimum thickness of a steel hull:
What I always read was that it would be just too difficult to weld thin steel plates. Therefore the minimum thickness. I don't think that frames and some other stiffeners would be much of a deal.
Regarding temperature:
I don't think that Expoxy can't handle the forces between the steel and the foam. Also the foam should allow that little change in dimensions.
However, now as you say it ...
If there is a temperature difference between inside and outside, i.e. the inside and outside skins would expand at a different rate, the panel would bend as a consequence. In an low-angle circle segment (i.e. a flat arc), even low changes in length result in significant changes in radius. (to illustrate this: put a sheet of paper on the table and move the edges just a mm together and see how much the middle buckles upwards).
I'll check how much that would be with temperatures that we encounter here.
Cheers,
Stefan
thanks for comments.
Regarding minimum thickness of a steel hull:
What I always read was that it would be just too difficult to weld thin steel plates. Therefore the minimum thickness. I don't think that frames and some other stiffeners would be much of a deal.
Regarding temperature:
I don't think that Expoxy can't handle the forces between the steel and the foam. Also the foam should allow that little change in dimensions.
However, now as you say it ...
If there is a temperature difference between inside and outside, i.e. the inside and outside skins would expand at a different rate, the panel would bend as a consequence. In an low-angle circle segment (i.e. a flat arc), even low changes in length result in significant changes in radius. (to illustrate this: put a sheet of paper on the table and move the edges just a mm together and see how much the middle buckles upwards).
I'll check how much that would be with temperatures that we encounter here.
Cheers,
Stefan
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bob Slimak <otter55806@...> wrote:
>
> Stefan,
> One thing I have not seen mentioned here is stiffness.
> This is important in boats, and is one area in which wood excels.
> The West Systems book show test on this.
> One reason most home built metal boats, whether steel or aluminum,
> are built with thicker plates is to get some stiffness into the hull.
> Most home builders don't have a way to form all those ribs they put
> in factory built aluminum boats, plus the ability to form curves
> into the hull which further adds stiffness.
> Flat panels do not have stiffness by themselves.
> A stressed skin panel of glass, foam glass works because that forms
> one stiff panel. So does wood, foam, wood.
> In theory if the thin steel was totally, 100% bonded to the foam
> it would be stiff, but steel has such a huge expansion,
> contraction range that it may break the bond from the foam.
> I think that is why all the books on home built metal boats show
> using a minimum of 10 gauge for steel and 3/16" for aluminum.
> Home builders just don't have the equipment to make thin skinned
> metal hulls.
One place I imagine that an Illinois would be awesome would be in
Puget Sound, and the Inland Passage of B.C.. For instance, as a
live-a-board boat in Eagle Harbor/Bainbridge Island, and 1,000 other
protected anchorages.
Puget Sound, and the Inland Passage of B.C.. For instance, as a
live-a-board boat in Eagle Harbor/Bainbridge Island, and 1,000 other
protected anchorages.
Stefan,
One thing I have not seen mentioned here is stiffness. This is important in boats, and is one area in which wood excels. The West Systems book show test on this. One reason most home built metal boats, whether steel or aluminum, are built with thicker plates is to get some stiffness into the hull. Most home builders don't have a way to form all those ribs they put in factory built aluminum boats, plus the ability to form curves into the hull which further adds stiffness. Flat panels do not have stiffness by themselves. A stressed skin panel of glass, foam glass works because that forms one stiff panel. So does wood, foam, wood. In theory if the thin steel was totally, 100% bonded to the foam it would be stiff, but steel has such a huge expansion, contraction range that it may break the bond from the foam. I think that is why all the books on home built metal boats show using a minimum of 10 gauge for steel and 3/16" for aluminum. Home
builders just don't have the equipment to make thin skinned metal hulls.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
One thing I have not seen mentioned here is stiffness. This is important in boats, and is one area in which wood excels. The West Systems book show test on this. One reason most home built metal boats, whether steel or aluminum, are built with thicker plates is to get some stiffness into the hull. Most home builders don't have a way to form all those ribs they put in factory built aluminum boats, plus the ability to form curves into the hull which further adds stiffness. Flat panels do not have stiffness by themselves. A stressed skin panel of glass, foam glass works because that forms one stiff panel. So does wood, foam, wood. In theory if the thin steel was totally, 100% bonded to the foam it would be stiff, but steel has such a huge expansion, contraction range that it may break the bond from the foam. I think that is why all the books on home built metal boats show using a minimum of 10 gauge for steel and 3/16" for aluminum. Home
builders just don't have the equipment to make thin skinned metal hulls.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Brian,
thanks for answering to my request for sandwich comments.
Regarding corrosion...
I was intending to use galvanized sheet metal, fixed with "blind" rivets to internal frames made from U profile steel, with Epoxy between the sandwich layers and also at the outside to prevent corrosion - and to fill the holes of the rivets.
To build completely in steel would need much thicker steel plates, thus get much more expensive, compared to a sandwich.
And, BTW, regarding Illinois' use:
First, some people seem to forget that there is a world outside the US, and marina slip fees are not a world-wide constant....
About other issues I tend very much to agree with Bruce.
I am thinking e.g. at a big lake/river in the mountains, created for a hydro power plant. Windage shouldn't be a large issue there. With her design (high B/D, sharp bow) she shouldn't create much waves, so most of her propulsion power would be needed for frictional resistance. Now do your math and look with what little power she could be moved ...
Anyway. Hoping for more comments regarding the sandwich.
Cheers,
Stefan
thanks for answering to my request for sandwich comments.
Regarding corrosion...
I was intending to use galvanized sheet metal, fixed with "blind" rivets to internal frames made from U profile steel, with Epoxy between the sandwich layers and also at the outside to prevent corrosion - and to fill the holes of the rivets.
To build completely in steel would need much thicker steel plates, thus get much more expensive, compared to a sandwich.
And, BTW, regarding Illinois' use:
First, some people seem to forget that there is a world outside the US, and marina slip fees are not a world-wide constant....
About other issues I tend very much to agree with Bruce.
I am thinking e.g. at a big lake/river in the mountains, created for a hydro power plant. Windage shouldn't be a large issue there. With her design (high B/D, sharp bow) she shouldn't create much waves, so most of her propulsion power would be needed for frictional resistance. Now do your math and look with what little power she could be moved ...
Anyway. Hoping for more comments regarding the sandwich.
Cheers,
Stefan
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Anderson" <bawrytr@...> wrote:
>
> The thing I would wonder about is problems with corrosion with the sandwiched steel bottom. I am certainly no expert, but I watched a couple of guys rebuild and lengthen an old steel boat a while back next to me on the hard and the owner said that steel boats rust from the inside out, and that you really had to be careful with areas that could catch and hold water. So the idea of a sandwich would provide three surfaces that were enclosed but couldn't possibly be sealed completely. I also wonder what having all that steel there might do to the fastenings, unless you used iron rivets or something to join the sides to the bottom.
>
> If you are going to be building in Vietnam, maybe your best bet would be just to do a steel boat, or a steel hull fitted out in wood.
>
> Cheers, Brian
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jmbell1" <smallboatdesigner@...> wrote:
Bolger in his essay, designed Illinois not to live in a marina but to put up in various places where there would be no fees. She would keep on the move, avoiding anchor fees.
Bolger also included a retractable off-center board to improve the handling concerns. I think the shoe, and the hard chines would help also. IMO using outboard motors at both ends enhances her controlability when she does need to dock.
The tender on the deck helps to avoid the need to dock Illinois on a frequent basis.
Don
>Don's response.
> As cool as this boat is, I can't see it anyone ever building it. Let's face it, a 60' boat is an expensive thing to slip.......
>
> The intention with Illinois is to build a lot of boat for comparatively little money that would have a low operating cost. It does all those things pretty well except for when you factor in the cost of a place to keep your boat. On the lake where we slip our boat (a lake that would be perfect for Illinois, btw), a 60' slip will cost you about $1,100/mo! So unless you live in area where slip fees are low, Illinois is unfortunately a white elephant.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jmbell1" <smallboatdesigner@> wrote:
> >
> > I tend to agree with Bolger on this one. This boat would be a pretty nice houseboat, but I would not want to move her very often. In particular, she'd be a handful maneuvering in close quarters.....
Bolger in his essay, designed Illinois not to live in a marina but to put up in various places where there would be no fees. She would keep on the move, avoiding anchor fees.
Bolger also included a retractable off-center board to improve the handling concerns. I think the shoe, and the hard chines would help also. IMO using outboard motors at both ends enhances her controlability when she does need to dock.
The tender on the deck helps to avoid the need to dock Illinois on a frequent basis.
Don
As cool as this boat is, I can't see it anyone ever building it. Let's face it, a 60' boat is an expensive thing to slip. Most people who have 60' slips for rent understand how much they are worth to typical guys who can afford 60' boats.
The intention with Illinois is to build a lot of boat for comparatively little money that would have a low operating cost. It does all those things pretty well except for when you factor in the cost of a place to keep your boat. On the lake where we slip our boat (a lake that would be perfect for Illinois, btw), a 60' slip will cost you about $1,100/mo! So unless you live in area where slip fees are low, Illinois is unfortunately a white elephant.
The intention with Illinois is to build a lot of boat for comparatively little money that would have a low operating cost. It does all those things pretty well except for when you factor in the cost of a place to keep your boat. On the lake where we slip our boat (a lake that would be perfect for Illinois, btw), a 60' slip will cost you about $1,100/mo! So unless you live in area where slip fees are low, Illinois is unfortunately a white elephant.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jmbell1" <smallboatdesigner@...> wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with Bolger on this one. This boat would be a pretty nice houseboat, but I would not want to move her very often. In particular, she'd be a handful maneuvering in close quarters. With her high windage, shallow draft, and comparatively light displacement I'll also bet she'll sail around uncomfortably at anchor.
>
> But tied to the dock, she'd be a pleasant place to be. Her unique, almost retro looks would also be a nice addition to the waterfront scene.
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I've read the excellent Bolger essay re Illinois. First, Illinois is not truely a cruiser. Bolger intends it as a houseboat with the ability to change its location using a 50 hp ob. It also has a retractable ob up front, which serves as a bow thruster.
> >
> > Bolger suggests that 100hp would "give her some legs". I think the temptation to put more HP on this sleek hull and cruise her would be irresistable. She would be fast with her 6x1 ratio hull and only 18" draw. I wonder if the forward thruster could be turned around, and tandem motors used to provide more speed and still assist in docking maneuvers.
> >
> > The boat would be built upright with the shoe laminated in plywood. I would be tempted to build the bottom most layer with epoxy and glass, but would attach upper layers using something less expensive, perhaps even a roofing cement. I would clad the outside of the shoe w' dimensional lumber, to cover the plywood edges, then finally epoxy on the outermost surfaces. The shoe would end up being 6" thick plywood, and would be the backbone of the boat's structure.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@> wrote:
> > >
> > >I haven't actually see
> > > the plans, and only am working off the MAIB illustrations. I imagine
> > > that the Illinois shoe is specified to be build of laminations of
> > > plywood like that Topaz shoe....On Illinois, being bigger, I would be tempted to laminate the shoe
> > > from staggered and layered 2x6 framing lumber. Imagine a 50 foot long 'glu-lam' beam acting as a backbone.
> > >
> >
>
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:10 PM, jmbell1
<smallboatdesigner@...> wrote:
The contrarian in me notices an other side of the coin for the sake of
discussion.
The maneuvering of any 50 foot boat in close quarters is an issue,
and the positive power of the forward and aft outboard motors would
allow some intricate maneuvering (sideways, for instance). Certainly,
in a high cross wind, the windage could be trouble. That is why the
skiff on deck waiting for hoisting is useful. Anchor out, and take
the skiff in.
The shallow draft and long narrow shape would make for astonishingly
efficient fuel consumption.
And prudent anchoring technique might involve a bow and stern anchor line.
extremely pricey.
<smallboatdesigner@...> wrote:
>All good points.
>
> I tend to agree with Bolger on this one. This boat would be a pretty nice
> houseboat, but I would not want to move her very often. In particular, she'd
> be a handful maneuvering in close quarters. With her high windage, shallow
> draft, and comparatively light displacement I'll also bet she'll sail around
> uncomfortably at anchor.
The contrarian in me notices an other side of the coin for the sake of
discussion.
The maneuvering of any 50 foot boat in close quarters is an issue,
and the positive power of the forward and aft outboard motors would
allow some intricate maneuvering (sideways, for instance). Certainly,
in a high cross wind, the windage could be trouble. That is why the
skiff on deck waiting for hoisting is useful. Anchor out, and take
the skiff in.
The shallow draft and long narrow shape would make for astonishingly
efficient fuel consumption.
And prudent anchoring technique might involve a bow and stern anchor line.
> But tied to the dock, she'd be a pleasant place to be. Her unique, almostWhere I live, 50 foot marina spaces are virtually non-existent, and
> retro looks would also be a nice addition to the waterfront scene.
extremely pricey.
Where in the files is the MAIB article on the Illinois, I put it there
and can't find it.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
and can't find it.
HJ
Bruce Hallman wrote:
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/3507882769/
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
I tend to agree with Bolger on this one. This boat would be a pretty nice houseboat, but I would not want to move her very often. In particular, she'd be a handful maneuvering in close quarters. With her high windage, shallow draft, and comparatively light displacement I'll also bet she'll sail around uncomfortably at anchor.
But tied to the dock, she'd be a pleasant place to be. Her unique, almost retro looks would also be a nice addition to the waterfront scene.
But tied to the dock, she'd be a pleasant place to be. Her unique, almost retro looks would also be a nice addition to the waterfront scene.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...> wrote:
>
>
> I've read the excellent Bolger essay re Illinois. First, Illinois is not truely a cruiser. Bolger intends it as a houseboat with the ability to change its location using a 50 hp ob. It also has a retractable ob up front, which serves as a bow thruster.
>
> Bolger suggests that 100hp would "give her some legs". I think the temptation to put more HP on this sleek hull and cruise her would be irresistable. She would be fast with her 6x1 ratio hull and only 18" draw. I wonder if the forward thruster could be turned around, and tandem motors used to provide more speed and still assist in docking maneuvers.
>
> The boat would be built upright with the shoe laminated in plywood. I would be tempted to build the bottom most layer with epoxy and glass, but would attach upper layers using something less expensive, perhaps even a roofing cement. I would clad the outside of the shoe w' dimensional lumber, to cover the plywood edges, then finally epoxy on the outermost surfaces. The shoe would end up being 6" thick plywood, and would be the backbone of the boat's structure.
>
> Don
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@> wrote:
> >
> >I haven't actually see
> > the plans, and only am working off the MAIB illustrations. I imagine
> > that the Illinois shoe is specified to be build of laminations of
> > plywood like that Topaz shoe....On Illinois, being bigger, I would be tempted to laminate the shoe
> > from staggered and layered 2x6 framing lumber. Imagine a 50 foot long 'glu-lam' beam acting as a backbone.
> >
>
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 12:49 PM, daschultz2000
<daschultz8275@...> wrote:
a hundred boats, I think I have absorbed a few things, and my opinion
is different. Illinois is a 'real boat', in my opinion, with the
sometime problem that in certain wave heights and directions, that the
outboard motor would pitch out of the water. I think she would still
make a very capable boat in rivers, bays, and elsewhere as long as you
paid prudent attention and were willing to wait out adverse weather.
<daschultz8275@...> wrote:
> I've read the excellent Bolger essay re Illinois. First, Illinois is notI know PB&F wrote such in the article, but after studying and modeling
> truely a cruiser.
a hundred boats, I think I have absorbed a few things, and my opinion
is different. Illinois is a 'real boat', in my opinion, with the
sometime problem that in certain wave heights and directions, that the
outboard motor would pitch out of the water. I think she would still
make a very capable boat in rivers, bays, and elsewhere as long as you
paid prudent attention and were willing to wait out adverse weather.
I've read the excellent Bolger essay re Illinois. First, Illinois is not truely a cruiser. Bolger intends it as a houseboat with the ability to change its location using a 50 hp ob. It also has a retractable ob up front, which serves as a bow thruster.
Bolger suggests that 100hp would "give her some legs". I think the temptation to put more HP on this sleek hull and cruise her would be irresistable. She would be fast with her 6x1 ratio hull and only 18" draw. I wonder if the forward thruster could be turned around, and tandem motors used to provide more speed and still assist in docking maneuvers.
The boat would be built upright with the shoe laminated in plywood. I would be tempted to build the bottom most layer with epoxy and glass, but would attach upper layers using something less expensive, perhaps even a roofing cement. I would clad the outside of the shoe w' dimensional lumber, to cover the plywood edges, then finally epoxy on the outermost surfaces. The shoe would end up being 6" thick plywood, and would be the backbone of the boat's structure.
Don
Bolger suggests that 100hp would "give her some legs". I think the temptation to put more HP on this sleek hull and cruise her would be irresistable. She would be fast with her 6x1 ratio hull and only 18" draw. I wonder if the forward thruster could be turned around, and tandem motors used to provide more speed and still assist in docking maneuvers.
The boat would be built upright with the shoe laminated in plywood. I would be tempted to build the bottom most layer with epoxy and glass, but would attach upper layers using something less expensive, perhaps even a roofing cement. I would clad the outside of the shoe w' dimensional lumber, to cover the plywood edges, then finally epoxy on the outermost surfaces. The shoe would end up being 6" thick plywood, and would be the backbone of the boat's structure.
Don
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
>
>I haven't actually see
> the plans, and only am working off the MAIB illustrations. I imagine
> that the Illinois shoe is specified to be build of laminations of
> plywood like that Topaz shoe....On Illinois, being bigger, I would be tempted to laminate the shoe
> from staggered and layered 2x6 framing lumber. Imagine a 50 foot long 'glu-lam' beam acting as a backbone.
>
Thank you. It is great fun to see this really neat design in 3D. Also without Bolger's 'dazzle' camouflage that makes the big box look like a shapely 30's cruiser.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/3507882769/
>
The thing I would wonder about is problems with corrosion with the sandwiched steel bottom. I am certainly no expert, but I watched a couple of guys rebuild and lengthen an old steel boat a while back next to me on the hard and the owner said that steel boats rust from the inside out, and that you really had to be careful with areas that could catch and hold water. So the idea of a sandwich would provide three surfaces that were enclosed but couldn't possibly be sealed completely. I also wonder what having all that steel there might do to the fastenings, unless you used iron rivets or something to join the sides to the bottom.
If you are going to be building in Vietnam, maybe your best bet would be just to do a steel boat, or a steel hull fitted out in wood.
Cheers, Brian
If you are going to be building in Vietnam, maybe your best bet would be just to do a steel boat, or a steel hull fitted out in wood.
Cheers, Brian
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Probst" <stefan.probst@...> wrote:
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@> wrote:
> >
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/3507882769/
> >
>
> Bruce,
>
> you master of virtual boat porn ... ;)
> Again a centre fold. Thanks!
>
> What I am mulling for a while ...
> Those large river sharpies have usually pretty thick bottoms, despite the huge sides that should take care of overall fore/aft bending forces (e.g. due to large waves that leave part of the bottom suspended), and the little draft that produces little static pressure.
>
> I assume that the thick bottoms are needed for increased puncture resistance, i.e. the weak spot of ply.
>
> Say, the bottom would be a ply/foam/ply sandwich with a thin layer of steel at the outside to increase puncture resistance. Frames as needed (also to avoid oil cannning). Cheap foam.
> What dimensions/thickness for the ply sides, the foam core, the steel sheet might be suitable?
>
> Usage, as with the Illinois: River cruising.
>
> Actually, I am thinking of steel/foam/steel, with a thicker steel at the outside.
> The reasons:
> - Outdoor or marine quality ply is difficult to get here.
> - Ply needs more careful work than steel, so steel is more suited for unsupervised contract work....
>
> I am looking for comments.
> Cheers,
> Stefan
>
> I assume that the thick bottoms are needed for increased punctureIllinois has a 'shoe' like Topaz, only bigger. I haven't actually see
> resistance, i.e. the weak spot of ply.
the plans, and only am working off the MAIB illustrations. I imagine
that the Illinois shoe is specified to be build of laminations of
plywood like that Topaz shoe. (Building the bottom of the Topaz was
remarkably easy, using epoxy and silicon bronze ring shank nails at 10
inch spacing to cinch the laminates tight. Using a 3 pound maul in
the left hand as a backer below, and a framing hammer in the right
hand above, very quick work.)
On Illinois, being bigger, I would be tempted to laminate the shoe
from staggered and layered 2x6 framing lumber. Imagine a 50 foot long
'glu-lam' beam acting as a backbone.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
you master of virtual boat porn ... ;)
Again a centre fold. Thanks!
What I am mulling for a while ...
Those large river sharpies have usually pretty thick bottoms, despite the huge sides that should take care of overall fore/aft bending forces (e.g. due to large waves that leave part of the bottom suspended), and the little draft that produces little static pressure.
I assume that the thick bottoms are needed for increased puncture resistance, i.e. the weak spot of ply.
Say, the bottom would be a ply/foam/ply sandwich with a thin layer of steel at the outside to increase puncture resistance. Frames as needed (also to avoid oil cannning). Cheap foam.
What dimensions/thickness for the ply sides, the foam core, the steel sheet might be suitable?
Usage, as with the Illinois: River cruising.
Actually, I am thinking of steel/foam/steel, with a thicker steel at the outside.
The reasons:
- Outdoor or marine quality ply is difficult to get here.
- Ply needs more careful work than steel, so steel is more suited for unsupervised contract work....
I am looking for comments.
Cheers,
Stefan
>Bruce,
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/hallman/3507882769/
>
you master of virtual boat porn ... ;)
Again a centre fold. Thanks!
What I am mulling for a while ...
Those large river sharpies have usually pretty thick bottoms, despite the huge sides that should take care of overall fore/aft bending forces (e.g. due to large waves that leave part of the bottom suspended), and the little draft that produces little static pressure.
I assume that the thick bottoms are needed for increased puncture resistance, i.e. the weak spot of ply.
Say, the bottom would be a ply/foam/ply sandwich with a thin layer of steel at the outside to increase puncture resistance. Frames as needed (also to avoid oil cannning). Cheap foam.
What dimensions/thickness for the ply sides, the foam core, the steel sheet might be suitable?
Usage, as with the Illinois: River cruising.
Actually, I am thinking of steel/foam/steel, with a thicker steel at the outside.
The reasons:
- Outdoor or marine quality ply is difficult to get here.
- Ply needs more careful work than steel, so steel is more suited for unsupervised contract work....
I am looking for comments.
Cheers,
Stefan