Re: General Topaz info wanted

from what I recall from MAIB, one of the commercial fishing boat designs he was working on (the smaller one) is based on the topaz hull, I'm not sure if it is the one that was built and launched in Gloucester recently, but I think so.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Joe Stromski <j.stromski@...> wrote:
>
> I'm very interested in building a Topaz. I'm seeking general info on the
> design. A previous thread mentioned it being available with a variety of
> different cabin treatments. My research has led me to Bruce Hallmann's
> Flickr pages, featuring the "Topaz Spyder", and I also see JourneyBoats
> online with the totally enclosed cabin version. Are these the two main
> variants? What about a bill of materials for the build? Does anyone know
> the cost of plans? Any other general info or opinions on the design?
> Thanks!
> Joe
>

I'm building a rather highly modified Idaho with a Clam Skiff bottom. The bottom is two layers of 1/2" MDO with three more layers 16" wide for the shoe. It is very stout.

I say highly modified because 4 cycle outboards are expensive and I had a junked Tennant sweeper on hand. It had a 33hp Kubota diesel with hydraulic drive. So the front 2/3's of my boat is Idaho and the rear 1/3 is Atkin Shoals Runner for the inboard installation. The flat bottom transition is more like Atkin Sand Piper. I retained the hydraulic drive and stretched the beam from 5' to 6' ( The Kubota and hydraulics being about 400 lbs. plus I needed the room to walk around it). AutoCad was a big help.
I have the hull completed and turned over. Engine installation is progressing.

Charles


--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...> wrote

>
> That said, you could double up the bottom thickness, and the bulkhead thickness, plus add a Work/Clam Skiff style 'shoe' (see Payson's Instant Boats site) to get the strength, and endure the ride. Devlin is big on beefy bulkheads, saying they contribute significantly to overall rigidity and even make construction easier because of the stiffness they add.
>
> This advice is worth just whatcha paid for it.
>
> Don Schultz
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Joe Stromski <j.stromski@> wrote:
> >
> > Have any Tennessee's been built using the "box cutwater" hull shown as
> > optional for the Sneak........
>

From what I read he did replace the bottom, stem to stern but he missed on the 5/8" Ply and went to 1/2" ply due to the "Exposure 1"/"Exterior" issue.  Reading that his Plywood supply did not have 5/8" Exterior on hand so he opted to go with 1/2".  Not that it's a real issue that I can see. though.



daschultz2000 wrote:

 

Nope. Swing and a miss Chris. I'm right. He did the whole bottom, and documented it in his May and June 2008 blog. A brief scan of the text reminded me that although the plans now show 1/2" ply, he used 5/8" in his rebuild, replacing the 3/8" ply.

http://www.jimsboat s.com/1may08. htm#New%20AF4% 20Bottom% 201

http://home. earthlink. net/~je3mchlk/ data/#AF4% 20Bottom% 202

Don Schultz ( who was right for once. ;-D )

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups. com, Chris Crandall <crandall@.. .> wrote:
>
> > Watch for the same thing from Jim Michalak, though I think he
> > provides very fair warning regarding what his designs are intended to
> > handle. Recently he rebuilt the bottom of his own prototype AF-4.
> > He went to a thicker bottom than his plans called for! Hmmmmmmm.
>
> DS: You might have mixed things up there. Jim replaced a bottom section
> in the stern hull due to rot. The patch might have been extra thick, but
> the rest of the bottom remained the same.
>

Nope. Swing and a miss Chris. I'm right. He did the whole bottom, and documented it in his May and June 2008 blog. A brief scan of the text reminded me that although the plans now show 1/2" ply, he used 5/8" in his rebuild, replacing the 3/8" ply.

http://www.jimsboats.com/1may08.htm#New%20AF4%20Bottom%201

http://home.earthlink.net/~je3mchlk/data/#AF4%20Bottom%202


Don Schultz ( who was right for once. ;-D )

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Chris Crandall <crandall@...> wrote:
>
> > Watch for the same thing from Jim Michalak, though I think he
> > provides very fair warning regarding what his designs are intended to
> > handle. Recently he rebuilt the bottom of his own prototype AF-4.
> > He went to a thicker bottom than his plans called for! Hmmmmmmm.
>
> DS: You might have mixed things up there. Jim replaced a bottom section
> in the stern hull due to rot. The patch might have been extra thick, but
> the rest of the bottom remained the same.
>

> Watch for the same thing from Jim Michalak, though I think he
> provides very fair warning regarding what his designs are intended to
> handle. Recently he rebuilt the bottom of his own prototype AF-4.
> He went to a thicker bottom than his plans called for! Hmmmmmmm.

DS: You might have mixed things up there. Jim replaced a bottom section
in the stern hull due to rot. The patch might have been extra thick, but
the rest of the bottom remained the same.

I'm very interested in building a Topaz. I'm seeking general info on the
design. A previous thread mentioned it being available with a variety of
different cabin treatments. My research has led me to Bruce Hallmann's
Flickr pages, featuring the "Topaz Spyder", and I also see JourneyBoats
online with the totally enclosed cabin version. Are these the two main
variants? What about a bill of materials for the build? Does anyone know
the cost of plans? Any other general info or opinions on the design?
Thanks!
Joe

Oh geez, I wasn't aware of the Topaz design. The world really needs a
comprehensive online catalog of Phil's boats...That design has really
got my juices flowing! My intended uses are taking out a bunch of
friends on day trips, or some overnight cruises with the wife, on inland
lakes and rivers in Wisconsin and other areas, with possibly a foray
into the Big Lake on occasion. Topaz strikes me as being near ideal, and
I loooove the looks...I'm definitely going to need to purchase the plans!
Coincidentally enough, I just completed a Michalak AF4, and the plans
have been revised to specify 1/2" for the bottom, as opposed to the
original 3/8". I used 1/2" MDO, with a layer of light cloth on the
outside for abrasion resistance and it seems darn near bullet-proof. Its
a really well thought out design overall, and I'm enjoying the heck out
of it.
Regards,
Joe

daschultz2000 wrote:

>
>
> The simple physics of the problem dictate the scantlings and shape.
> You'll be money and time ahead buying plans to do what you want. So it
> sounds like you are going the right way, seeking a proven design.
>
> With the Great Lakes as part of the boat's mission, in my very
> inexpert opinion, it would be better to go to Topaz or Robin Jean to
> get the hull for the waters you want cruise, and adapt the cabin
> structure you wish to have, than to modify Tenn' to approach the
> strength, and ride characteristics of these more capable hull designs.
>
> Both Topaz and Robin Jean hulls are intended to take a variety of
> cabins. In particular, RJ built to PB&F's specs, would take a beating,
> including getting holed or swamped, and still bring you home.
>
> The Aussie derivations are still intended for protected waters. PB&F
> and others have misgivings about the CG and windage effects of the
> cabin structure they have added above the simple skiff hull.
>
> There is a Tenn named Esther Mae (sp?) that is in the pics somewhere
> here in the Bolger groups. The owner is/has needed to redo the bottom,
> thickening it because of oil canning, just for river cruising, no
> Great Lakes stuff. Fact is Bolger could get things really a bit to
> light at times in otherwise substantial looking boats.
>
> Watch for the same thing from Jim Michalak, though I think he provides
> very fair warning regarding what his designs are intended to handle.
> Recently he rebuilt the bottom of his own prototype AF-4. He went to a
> thicker bottom than his plans called for! Hmmmmmmm.
>
> That said, you could double up the bottom thickness, and the bulkhead
> thickness, plus add a Work/Clam Skiff style 'shoe' (see Payson's
> Instant Boats site) to get the strength, and endure the ride. Devlin
> is big on beefy bulkheads, saying they contribute significantly to
> overall rigidity and even make construction easier because of the
> stiffness they add.
>
> This advice is worth just whatcha paid for it.
>
> Don Schultz
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>, Joe
> Stromski <j.stromski@...> wrote:
> >
> > Have any Tennessee's been built using the "box cutwater" hull shown as
> > optional for the Sneak........
>
>

The simple physics of the problem dictate the scantlings and shape. You'll be money and time ahead buying plans to do what you want. So it sounds like you are going the right way, seeking a proven design.

With the Great Lakes as part of the boat's mission, in my very inexpert opinion, it would be better to go to Topaz or Robin Jean to get the hull for the waters you want cruise, and adapt the cabin structure you wish to have, than to modify Tenn' to approach the strength, and ride characteristics of these more capable hull designs.

Both Topaz and Robin Jean hulls are intended to take a variety of cabins. In particular, RJ built to PB&F's specs, would take a beating, including getting holed or swamped, and still bring you home.

The Aussie derivations are still intended for protected waters. PB&F and others have misgivings about the CG and windage effects of the cabin structure they have added above the simple skiff hull.

There is a Tenn named Esther Mae (sp?) that is in the pics somewhere here in the Bolger groups. The owner is/has needed to redo the bottom, thickening it because of oil canning, just for river cruising, no Great Lakes stuff. Fact is Bolger could get things really a bit to light at times in otherwise substantial looking boats.

Watch for the same thing from Jim Michalak, though I think he provides very fair warning regarding what his designs are intended to handle. Recently he rebuilt the bottom of his own prototype AF-4. He went to a thicker bottom than his plans called for! Hmmmmmmm.

That said, you could double up the bottom thickness, and the bulkhead thickness, plus add a Work/Clam Skiff style 'shoe' (see Payson's Instant Boats site) to get the strength, and endure the ride. Devlin is big on beefy bulkheads, saying they contribute significantly to overall rigidity and even make construction easier because of the stiffness they add.

This advice is worth just whatcha paid for it.

Don Schultz

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Joe Stromski <j.stromski@...> wrote:
>
> Have any Tennessee's been built using the "box cutwater" hull shown as
> optional for the Sneak........

Have any Tennessee's been built using the "box cutwater" hull shown as
optional for the Sneakeasy? Are plans available for this possible
variation? I see Mundoo Express plans for sale at
http://www.duckflatwoodenboats.com/mainpages/mundoo.phpwhich seems to
be a pretty direct derivative of either the Tennessee or Idaho, using
that design. The price of $900 Au dollars (which works out to over $750
US!!) will certainly deter me from purchasing those plans. The Tennessee
is on my short list of "boats I want", but the flat-bottom design would
keep me off Lake Michigan on anything but the nicest days. I'm not even
sure that adding a box cutwater would accomplish that goal; any opinions
on that?
Regards to all,
Joe

> I have a Bolger Folding Schooner for sale as well.

How are the sails?

FWIW, there are still some photos of your boat under construction and from the day of her first sail hanging around the files section:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Folding%20Schooner/


Peter

I'm going to sell my Phil Bolger light schooner.

It is on a trailer.

There is a picture of it here in a file called "john's schooner".

It is located in Lillington, NC, about 35 miles south of Raleigh.

I'm open to offers.

You can email me directly at this address so the others aren't bothered by group messages: dun-wurkin AT hotmail dot com

(I wrote the email address this way so web crawlers don't pick up my email address for spamming, so use @ and . where appropriate).

Thank you,
John