Re: Looking for a MAIB article on design #459
Wow. Now THAT is an answer. Thanks a lot Gary.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@...> wrote:
>
> To answer your last question, it is reasonably easy to remove the keel by reversing the installation. Get a crane to take the weight of the boat and block up the keel. Remove the two 3/4" bolts, and the blocking around the bottom of the keel slot, and then just lift the boat off the keel. Reverse when you get to your designation. It's much easier than any conventional keel boat, but you still need a crane or boat lift at each end of the operation.
Pippo:
The keel is wing-shaped, although I don't know if it's a precise NACA section. If it's not, it wouldn't be hard to make it a NACA profile. It's a hollow steel fin, with 1,000 pounds (~450 kilos) of lead poured into the bottom. The sides of the keel are 1/8 inch (3mm) steel. At the front of the keel, the sides are welded to a 1/2 inch steel bar that forms the leading edge. The steel sides are wrapped around two stringers (ribs?) of 1/8 inch steel, set perpendicular to the sides; the stringers give the keel its shape. the forward one (about 1/3 aft of the leading edge) is 4 1/4" wide, the aft one (about 2/3 aft of the leading edge) is 4" wide. At the aft edge of the keel, the sides are welded to a 1/4" steel plate that projects about 3" out from that joint. There's also a 1/4" steel plate, 3 or 4 inches wide, welded at the top of the leading edge 1/2" steel bar. The top and bottom of the keel are also 1/4" steel. That description is a bit clumsy. Check the link below. It has a drawing and some pictures of the second steel fin made for the wing keel conversion. The original keel was obviously longer and without the wing, but the construction was the same.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/04/s/articles/wingkeel/index.cfm
I didn't make the keel, I had a welder to that, as I lack the necessary skills. The original was made from stainless steel. I don't know which grade but I'd recommend 316. I suspect that was what mine was made from because I never saw any corrosion or deterioration for the 12 years it was in the water.
On mounting the keel. 3/4" holes are drilled at the top of the tab welded on the top front of the keel and in the 1/4" trailing edge of the keel. In the drawing in the linked article, you can see the revised keel case, made very high to accommodate the current lifting keel. The original case was much lower, about 18 inches high. Along the top of the case, heavy wood blocking was installed on each side, with about a half inch gap in the middle It was cut out to match the wing outline of the keel. Two 3/4" holes were drilled through the case & the blocking to match the holes at the top front and back of the keel. (I don't remember how I did this, but it all did line up.) Then the fun part. The boat is picked up with a crane or lift, and then lowered on the keel. There are several minutes (or more) of fun as you edge the boat 1/16" foreward or backward, up or down, to get first one, and then the other set of holes lined up and 3/4" stainless bolts inserted. Those two bolts are what holds the keel in place. Installing and shaping this blocking and getting the holes drilled correctly are the toughest part of the construction. there is also blocking on the bottom of the keel case, to smooth the flow of the water around the keel and past the slot. But that's pretty straightforward to install. {An advantage of having the keel case is you can mount a depth finder transducer and knot-log impeller through the mounting at the bottom of the keel case, no need to drill other holes though the hull.)
To answer your last question, it is reasonably easy to remove the keel by reversing the installation. Get a crane to take the weight of the boat and block up the keel. Remove the two 3/4" bolts, and the blocking around the bottom of the keel slot, and then just lift the boat off the keel. Reverse when you get to your designation. It's much easier than any conventional keel boat, but you still need a crane or boat lift at each end of the operation.
Gary
The keel is wing-shaped, although I don't know if it's a precise NACA section. If it's not, it wouldn't be hard to make it a NACA profile. It's a hollow steel fin, with 1,000 pounds (~450 kilos) of lead poured into the bottom. The sides of the keel are 1/8 inch (3mm) steel. At the front of the keel, the sides are welded to a 1/2 inch steel bar that forms the leading edge. The steel sides are wrapped around two stringers (ribs?) of 1/8 inch steel, set perpendicular to the sides; the stringers give the keel its shape. the forward one (about 1/3 aft of the leading edge) is 4 1/4" wide, the aft one (about 2/3 aft of the leading edge) is 4" wide. At the aft edge of the keel, the sides are welded to a 1/4" steel plate that projects about 3" out from that joint. There's also a 1/4" steel plate, 3 or 4 inches wide, welded at the top of the leading edge 1/2" steel bar. The top and bottom of the keel are also 1/4" steel. That description is a bit clumsy. Check the link below. It has a drawing and some pictures of the second steel fin made for the wing keel conversion. The original keel was obviously longer and without the wing, but the construction was the same.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/04/s/articles/wingkeel/index.cfm
I didn't make the keel, I had a welder to that, as I lack the necessary skills. The original was made from stainless steel. I don't know which grade but I'd recommend 316. I suspect that was what mine was made from because I never saw any corrosion or deterioration for the 12 years it was in the water.
On mounting the keel. 3/4" holes are drilled at the top of the tab welded on the top front of the keel and in the 1/4" trailing edge of the keel. In the drawing in the linked article, you can see the revised keel case, made very high to accommodate the current lifting keel. The original case was much lower, about 18 inches high. Along the top of the case, heavy wood blocking was installed on each side, with about a half inch gap in the middle It was cut out to match the wing outline of the keel. Two 3/4" holes were drilled through the case & the blocking to match the holes at the top front and back of the keel. (I don't remember how I did this, but it all did line up.) Then the fun part. The boat is picked up with a crane or lift, and then lowered on the keel. There are several minutes (or more) of fun as you edge the boat 1/16" foreward or backward, up or down, to get first one, and then the other set of holes lined up and 3/4" stainless bolts inserted. Those two bolts are what holds the keel in place. Installing and shaping this blocking and getting the holes drilled correctly are the toughest part of the construction. there is also blocking on the bottom of the keel case, to smooth the flow of the water around the keel and past the slot. But that's pretty straightforward to install. {An advantage of having the keel case is you can mount a depth finder transducer and knot-log impeller through the mounting at the bottom of the keel case, no need to drill other holes though the hull.)
To answer your last question, it is reasonably easy to remove the keel by reversing the installation. Get a crane to take the weight of the boat and block up the keel. Remove the two 3/4" bolts, and the blocking around the bottom of the keel slot, and then just lift the boat off the keel. Reverse when you get to your designation. It's much easier than any conventional keel boat, but you still need a crane or boat lift at each end of the operation.
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Pippo" <pippobianco@...> wrote:
>
> Gary
> could you tell me something more about the original fin keel? How is it made? Scantlings? Is it a NACA profile? Does it require particular skills? And last but not least: could it be detached from the boat to allow for long distance trailering, or is it permanently fixed?
> Thanks
> Pippo
>
Gary
could you tell me something more about the original fin keel? How is it made? Scantlings? Is it a NACA profile? Does it require particular skills? And last but not least: could it be detached from the boat to allow for long distance trailering, or is it permanently fixed?
Thanks
Pippo
could you tell me something more about the original fin keel? How is it made? Scantlings? Is it a NACA profile? Does it require particular skills? And last but not least: could it be detached from the boat to allow for long distance trailering, or is it permanently fixed?
Thanks
Pippo
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@...> wrote:
>
> Pippo:
> The yard is a hollow box spar with 1/2 inch (12 mm) walls, with some reinforcing there the u-bolt for the halyard is attached. It's not too heavy. I can't find the spar plans at the moment but I think the yard is about 18 feet long. You might be able to find a discarded windsurfer carbon fiber mast of that length and add a layer of two of undirectional carbon sleeving. That should be strong enough and weigh a half to third of the wooden spar.
>
> Gary
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Pippo" <pippobianco@> wrote:
> >
> > Gary
> > looking at the drawings, it looks like the yard is quite heavy. Is that true? What do you think about the possibility of making a lighter one, say a laminated beam reinforced with carbon fiber?
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bolger had expected I could raise the sails without winches, but that never worked, at least in part because I had the sails overbuilt from 8 oz. sailcloth. 6 ounce probably would have sufficed and maybe even 4.5.
> >
>
Mike, I didn't have to convince the designer. He generously offered his advice in book form and I read and re-read each of them. Phil Bolger's books contain enough wisdom to form the basis of a school of naval architecture. My earlier warning was not to do what I had done. Well, actually to do everything I had done and then have a naval architect go over the plans.
But who besides Phil who would have tolerated off center masts, water ballast, balanced lug schooner rig, and ballasted leeboards? There likely would have been arguments against the barge hull as well. Still, any architect could have done sail balance, and boat stability analysis for me, and maybe they would have successfully advised me that two storage areas were too deep to be ideal and would be better utilized if divided between forward (salon) and aft cabin (two real cabins on a 26' boat!).
Well, now there is Mrs. Bolger.
Eric
But who besides Phil who would have tolerated off center masts, water ballast, balanced lug schooner rig, and ballasted leeboards? There likely would have been arguments against the barge hull as well. Still, any architect could have done sail balance, and boat stability analysis for me, and maybe they would have successfully advised me that two storage areas were too deep to be ideal and would be better utilized if divided between forward (salon) and aft cabin (two real cabins on a 26' boat!).
Well, now there is Mrs. Bolger.
Eric
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, mike graf <mgraf@...> wrote:
>
> Kent and Eric
> I too am interested in this design process.Good for you for taking
> it on,nothing like a boat built for specifically you.......Really
> interested to see what designer you convince to help.
> Before mass production boats were all built for local conditions and
> specific use(ex..protected waters/6ft3headroom) Bolgers box boat
> w/vertical sides and open bows give an amazing interior space The stuff
> we humans own and store are mostly rectangular. The tool boxes,milk
> crates etc actually fit in the compartments in the bilge. At 6ft3, your
> big feet will fit in a not so v-berth. If you back the berth 1 ft away
> from the bulkhead it'll be way more comfortable. Triloboats extreme of
> no curve to the sides at all is directly linked to the need for interior
> space.A rectagular boat allows the use of a stock(thermopedic??)
> mattress, even if you gotta get it in there before putting on the deck.
> Better mattress. cheaper cost. And you not throwing away 1/4 of the foam
> you bought to make a v-birth....sailing house boat.
> They(Davi/Onka Triloboat) lived aboard a self built, junk rigged,
> modified AS 29 for a long time before they design and built their
> triloboat......they also eliminated the rocker putting more boat on the
> bottom while aground (something they love to do) spreading the stress
> when the boat bounces on an incoming tide.
> These design considerations can look foolish to the sea-going sailor
> yet work for them(and their out there doing it)
> All that being said, the flat bottom boat design has qualities that
> can't be ignore:
>
> ANY wave form from a ripple to a small chop to a 1 FT SEA... drums,bang
> and BOOMS on the bows bottom
> IF YOU CAN LIVE WITH GOOD... IF YOU CAN'T IT'LL DRIVE YOU CRAZY
>
> There's no such thing as good/cheap plywood, only the best is
> worth building with $$$$
> There's expensive plywood that is rated rot resistance-poor by the
> producers!! = lots of expensive epoxy and cross your fingers......Sadly
> the days of Fir/ply are gone
>
> That's why you must consider Bolger's Thames River Barge Designs.
> Like Erics Romp.... they come in all sizes, they're Bolger's older
> designs, should be affordable, hell he used to include the table of
> offsets in his books.
> You'll see they have long straight bottoms, hard yet rounded chines
> and gorgeous seakindly bows and sterns. Strip planking is not hard and
> very efficient use of material. You might think you save alot of time
> with plywood(actually hard for one man to handle giant lengths of ply)
> but strip plank is low skill one man job. I met a 65 yr old man who
> built a 50 ftr on the beach by hand in one summer(someone cut and
> delivered the strips for him. Anyway thanx for letting me ramble,have
> fun Mike
>
>
> Eric wrote:
> >
> >
> > I stand corrected, and encourage you in every way. I was a bit too
> > flip saying you would gain almost nothing by chopping 6' out of a 38'
> > boat. Scaling down would reduce displacement, IF simplicity was
> > retained. On the other hand, greater simplicity of interior could
> > reduce displacement on the same length and the same sail plan would
> > drive the easier to drive longer hull of the same or little more
> > displacement faster than the shorter boat. Furthermore, I was
> > concerned about your need for headroom. The longer the boat the easier
> > it is to get headroom. Stability can be increased fastest by
> > increasing breadth, but that can reduce ultimate
> > stability/self-righting (the old IOR boats are more stable upside down
> > than right side up) Length also increases stability.
> >
> > Please keep us informed of your design progress. In that regard I
> > encourage you to employ a real naval architect at some point prior to
> > building for all the reasons you say, and all the reasons I am lucky
> > to have a boat that works at all.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>, Kent
> > <kent@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I understand that the real measure of a boat is the displacement, not
> > > the length. By that same principle, why do you think that I would
> > > "gain almost nothing" by chopping 6 feet out of a 38-foot hull? I'm
> > > not trying to pack the original functionality into a smaller hull;
> > > I'm giving up an entire room with two desks and a settee.
> > >
> > > AS39 is about 10,000 lbs., and I think I can get by with more like
> > > 8,000. That will allow me to reduce the size of the rig down to
> > > something I'm familiar with. My current boat has a 192 sq. ft. main
> > > and a 120 sq. ft. mizzen. For a 32-footer, I could make a cat
> > > schooner rig with two of the 192-ft. sails; that should be about
> > > right for 8,0000 lbs.
> > >
> > > Besides, as Mike suggested, I expect to use the boat inland or along
> > > the East & Gulf coasts. I have no desire to cross oceans, or win
> > > races. I do like a boat that's maneuverable, and can explore nooks
> > > and crannies; that's half the fun of shallow draft.
> > >
> > > After buying two boats, I feel like I've spent much of the last 15
> > > years looking at other people's designs, and thinking, "Wow, that one
> > > would be perfect for me, if only ..." I'm tired of that. Besides, I
> > > like designing things; using someone else's plan would deprive me of
> > > the best part of the process.
> > >
> > > -- Kent
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >As for what you want to do with Loose Moose, why shorten it. You
> > > >gain almost nothing is material or cost savings. I have nearly
> > > >replied to several prior posts about other boats and people need to
> > > >pay attention to Phil's comment about a short trawler he
> > > >designed. He packed forty feet of boat into twenty-eight feet and
> > > >said that the shorter boat would likely cost just as much because of
> > > >the complications involved in building it, performance would be
> > > >less, and the only savings would be dock fees. This is my
> > > >experience with ROGUE. I have fervently wished I had stretched the
> > > >station spacing and built ROGUE to 30'. I suggest you rework the
> > > >interior of Loose Moose and not design another boat. Design an easy
> > > >to build interior that flexibly fits your current and unknown
> > future desires.
> > >
> >
> >
>
Pippo:
The yard is a hollow box spar with 1/2 inch (12 mm) walls, with some reinforcing there the u-bolt for the halyard is attached. It's not too heavy. I can't find the spar plans at the moment but I think the yard is about 18 feet long. You might be able to find a discarded windsurfer carbon fiber mast of that length and add a layer of two of undirectional carbon sleeving. That should be strong enough and weigh a half to third of the wooden spar.
Gary
The yard is a hollow box spar with 1/2 inch (12 mm) walls, with some reinforcing there the u-bolt for the halyard is attached. It's not too heavy. I can't find the spar plans at the moment but I think the yard is about 18 feet long. You might be able to find a discarded windsurfer carbon fiber mast of that length and add a layer of two of undirectional carbon sleeving. That should be strong enough and weigh a half to third of the wooden spar.
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Pippo" <pippobianco@...> wrote:
>
> Gary
> looking at the drawings, it looks like the yard is quite heavy. Is that true? What do you think about the possibility of making a lighter one, say a laminated beam reinforced with carbon fiber?
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@> wrote:
> >
> > Bolger had expected I could raise the sails without winches, but that never worked, at least in part because I had the sails overbuilt from 8 oz. sailcloth. 6 ounce probably would have sufficed and maybe even 4.5.
>
Gary
looking at the drawings, it looks like the yard is quite heavy. Is that true? What do you think about the possibility of making a lighter one, say a laminated beam reinforced with carbon fiber?
looking at the drawings, it looks like the yard is quite heavy. Is that true? What do you think about the possibility of making a lighter one, say a laminated beam reinforced with carbon fiber?
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@...> wrote:
>
> Bolger had expected I could raise the sails without winches, but that never worked, at least in part because I had the sails overbuilt from 8 oz. sailcloth. 6 ounce probably would have sufficed and maybe even 4.5.
I too am interested in this design process.Good for you for taking it on,nothing like a boat built for specifically you.......Really interested to see what designer you convince to help.
Before mass production boats were all built for local conditions and specific use(ex..protected waters/6ft3headroom) Bolgers box boat w/vertical sides and open bows give an amazing interior space The stuff we humans own and store are mostly rectangular. The tool boxes,milk crates etc actually fit in the compartments in the bilge. At 6ft3, your big feet will fit in a not so v-berth. If you back the berth 1 ft away from the bulkhead it'll be way more comfortable. Triloboats extreme of no curve to the sides at all is directly linked to the need for interior space.A rectagular boat allows the use of a stock(thermopedic??) mattress, even if you gotta get it in there before putting on the deck. Better mattress. cheaper cost. And you not throwing away 1/4 of the foam you bought to make a v-birth....sailing house boat.
They(Davi/Onka Triloboat) lived aboard a self built, junk rigged, modified AS 29 for a long time before they design and built their triloboat......they also eliminated the rocker putting more boat on the bottom while aground (something they love to do) spreading the stress when the boat bounces on an incoming tide.
These design considerations can look foolish to the sea-going sailor yet work for them(and their out there doing it)
All that being said, the flat bottom boat design has qualities that can't be ignore:
ANY wave form from a ripple to a small chop to a 1 FT SEA... drums,bang and BOOMS on the bows bottom
IF YOU CAN LIVE WITH GOOD... IF YOU CAN'T IT'LL DRIVE YOU CRAZY
There's no such thing as good/cheap plywood, only the best is worth building with $$$$
There's expensive plywood that is rated rot resistance-poor by the producers!! = lots of expensive epoxy and cross your fingers......Sadly the days of Fir/ply are gone
That's why you must consider Bolger's Thames River Barge Designs. Like Erics Romp.... they come in all sizes, they're Bolger's older designs, should be affordable, hell he used to include the table of offsets in his books.
You'll see they have long straight bottoms, hard yet rounded chines and gorgeous seakindly bows and sterns. Strip planking is not hard and very efficient use of material. You might think you save alot of time with plywood(actually hard for one man to handle giant lengths of ply) but strip plank is low skill one man job. I met a 65 yr old man who built a 50 ftr on the beach by hand in one summer(someone cut and delivered the strips for him. Anyway thanx for letting me ramble,have fun Mike
Eric wrote:
I stand corrected, and encourage you in every way. I was a bit too flip saying you would gain almost nothing by chopping 6' out of a 38' boat. Scaling down would reduce displacement, IF simplicity was retained. On the other hand, greater simplicity of interior could reduce displacement on the same length and the same sail plan would drive the easier to drive longer hull of the same or little more displacement faster than the shorter boat. Furthermore, I was concerned about your need for headroom. The longer the boat the easier it is to get headroom. Stability can be increased fastest by increasing breadth, but that can reduce ultimate stability/self-righting (the old IOR boats are more stable upside down than right side up) Length also increases stability.
Please keep us informed of your design progress. In that regard I encourage you to employ a real naval architect at some point prior to building for all the reasons you say, and all the reasons I am lucky to have a boat that works at all.
Eric
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kent<kent@...>wrote:
>
> I understand that the real measure of a boat is the displacement, not
> the length. By that same principle, why do you think that I would
> "gain almost nothing" by chopping 6 feet out of a 38-foot hull? I'm
> not trying to pack the original functionality into a smaller hull;
> I'm giving up an entire room with two desks and a settee.
>
> AS39 is about 10,000 lbs., and I think I can get by with more like
> 8,000. That will allow me to reduce the size of the rig down to
> something I'm familiar with. My current boat has a 192 sq. ft. main
> and a 120 sq. ft. mizzen. For a 32-footer, I could make a cat
> schooner rig with two of the 192-ft. sails; that should be about
> right for 8,0000 lbs.
>
> Besides, as Mike suggested, I expect to use the boat inland or along
> the East & Gulf coasts. I have no desire to cross oceans, or win
> races. I do like a boat that's maneuverable, and can explore nooks
> and crannies; that's half the fun of shallow draft.
>
> After buying two boats, I feel like I've spent much of the last 15
> years looking at other people's designs, and thinking, "Wow, that one
> would be perfect for me, if only ..." I'm tired of that. Besides, I
> like designing things; using someone else's plan would deprive me of
> the best part of the process.
>
> -- Kent
>
>
>
> >As for what you want to do with Loose Moose, why shorten it. You
> >gain almost nothing is material or cost savings. I have nearly
> >replied to several prior posts about other boats and people need to
> >pay attention to Phil's comment about a short trawler he
> >designed. He packed forty feet of boat into twenty-eight feet and
> >said that the shorter boat would likely cost just as much because of
> >the complications involved in building it, performance would be
> >less, and the only savings would be dock fees. This is my
> >experience with ROGUE. I have fervently wished I had stretched the
> >station spacing and built ROGUE to 30'. I suggest you rework the
> >interior of Loose Moose and not design another boat. Design an easy
> >to build interior that flexibly fits your current and unknown future desires.
>
Eric:
No, that's always baffled me because there is no difference with a balanced lug; in fact sometimes my boats are faster on the "bad" tack with a balanced lug. A wild guess is even with the tack traveler, I couldn't get the tack far enough to windward to make a good sail shape with the dipping lug on the bad tack. I know once I was making 6 knots on the good tack with the dipping lug and decided to do a short tack without switching sails. On the bad tack, the speed dropped to 3.5 knots and the boat felt like it was laboring. Tacked back to the good tack and it was back to 6 knots.
Even with a balanced lug it's good to know how to rig a dipping lug, because if you break a mast, boom, or yard, you can probably rerig as a dipping lug and keep going.
Gary
No, that's always baffled me because there is no difference with a balanced lug; in fact sometimes my boats are faster on the "bad" tack with a balanced lug. A wild guess is even with the tack traveler, I couldn't get the tack far enough to windward to make a good sail shape with the dipping lug on the bad tack. I know once I was making 6 knots on the good tack with the dipping lug and decided to do a short tack without switching sails. On the bad tack, the speed dropped to 3.5 knots and the boat felt like it was laboring. Tacked back to the good tack and it was back to 6 knots.
Even with a balanced lug it's good to know how to rig a dipping lug, because if you break a mast, boom, or yard, you can probably rerig as a dipping lug and keep going.
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <eric14850@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Gary, Any idea why there was so much speed difference between the "good" and "bad" tack. I have noticed no difference on ROGUE. ROGUE's mainsail is just a cut off eight oz mainsail from a larger boat. It is cut much too flat and it much too stiff to be ideal in light air. Over 20 mph it is fine. Since you also used 8 oz cloth that is not the variable. The two I can think of are force used to raise the sail (I use a two speed winch and tighten the halyard tight enough that there is little twist to the sail on any tack.); and cut of the sail, Bolger stating that the ideal is to be cut with the fullness of a genoa (which strikes me as correct).
>
> Tacking a small lug sail.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Gp71JdmPs&feature=related
> This is how I will tack my 450 or so square foot lateen sail. I will probably have to handle the tack line as well, pulling the foot of the yard near the mast as the sail comes round to the other tack.
>
> (Sorry for addressing Pippo instead of Gary and needing to repost.)
> Eric
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@> wrote:
> >
> > Pippo:
> > Tacking was relatively straightforward, but time consuming, usually taking around 3 minutes. The tack was on a traveler, so it could be set to windward. For solo work, I needed an autopilot to tend the tiller while I handled the sails. All controls for raising and lowering the sails and for tacking were led to the cockpit. The process for tacking was to release the tack traveler, so the tack would on its own go from the windward side of the deck to the leeward side. The control line was cleated to hold it there. Then the autopilot was set to tack the boat, and I'd drop the sail as quick as I could as the boat came through the wind. Then I raise the other sail (now on the leeward side). Bolger had expected I could raise the sails without winches, but that never worked, at least in part because I had the sails overbuilt from 8 oz. sailcloth. 6 ounce probably would have sufficed and maybe even 4.5. Bolger told me he was able to raise the 450-square foot dipping lug on Resolution by hand, so it must have been fairly light material. (My sails are 385 square feet). It might have been better to complete the tack with the first sail left up, now on the windward size of the mast. The boat goes very slowly with the sail set that way, but it does go. then raise the second sail behind it, and lower the windward sail only when the leeward one is up. There might be some chaff against the mast, but I don't think it would be serious.
> >
> > I never saw any way to counterweight the sails so the one coming down helps raise the one going up. For one thing, at the end of a sail, both have to be lowered together. Also, it might be necessary to partially lower one to tie a reef in.
> >
> > Bolger also came up with a way to tack a single dippling lug without completely lowering it. I played with that once, but without much luck, or at least any improvement in tacking speed. On the plans drawning, you'll notice the front of the cabin and the aft side of the mast make a V-shaped area, and the sail kept getting hung up there. Seems like there should be a way to address that, but I wasn't interested enough to push in. As noted above, with two sails of with one using the Bolger method it took about 3 minutes to tack, if nothing went wrong.
> >
> > One weakness of the dipping lug rig is while they could be raised & lowered from the cockpit, they couldn't be reefed from there. It required a trip over the deck, or standing in the forward hatch to tie in the reef point at the tack. Since by definition the wind is going to be up and the seas rough, it's likely to be at least a wet proposition. I have been able to rig reefing lines that lead to the cockpit for the balanced lug.
> >
> > If you haven't seen them, here's some links to YouTube videos of the boat, one a walking tour and the other sailing on the water. This is of the new, higher and longer cabin, The part where I walk around the mast wouldn't be possible there as with the original design there was about 3 feet of headroom there -- not even enough to use the porta-potti.
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq2Ehije3Dk
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7AlSqLrD74
> >
> > A couple other sailing videos should show up on the list to the right if you look at these. I like the view through those big, Lexan windows!
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Pippo" <pippobianco@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary
> > > since we're here, one more question: how does one tack with the P&S dipping lugs? I would imagine that one rig counterbalances the other, so the hoisting/lowering effor might be greatly reduced...
> > >
> > > Pippo
> > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What rig would you use? Lot of work tacking as a dipping lugger (partly because I had the sails made extra heavy). I like the balanced lugger. At one point, Bolger drew up a Chinese lug for me, but I decided to stay with the balance lug.
> > >
> >
>
Hi Eric,
I'm not sure if I'll build a Romp or not. It's possible and is most
definitely "The Boat of the Week". I had thought of stretching it out
by putting the molds on 40 inch centres from the as-designed 36 inch.
But, the boat is pretty darn good just as it is. Changing it for
change sakes seems unneeded, for my use.
I did have a few changes in mind though... Put the centre board off
centre. Mostly for when the boat takes the ground, the slot would be
off the beach and therefore not collect rocks and such and jamb up.
The head would tuck in the on the one side of the board trunk. ...
after all these years I still can't appreciate the look of leeboards.
So, my modified layout would be... Big settee/berth area in the bow,
head and galley midships and a pair of quarter berths aft. Short trunk
cabin to be able to stand up in the galley and head areas. I'd also
add more sail area and an inboard, lots of light-wind and no-wind days
here on the Canadian west coast.
RonB.
I'm not sure if I'll build a Romp or not. It's possible and is most
definitely "The Boat of the Week". I had thought of stretching it out
by putting the molds on 40 inch centres from the as-designed 36 inch.
But, the boat is pretty darn good just as it is. Changing it for
change sakes seems unneeded, for my use.
I did have a few changes in mind though... Put the centre board off
centre. Mostly for when the boat takes the ground, the slot would be
off the beach and therefore not collect rocks and such and jamb up.
The head would tuck in the on the one side of the board trunk. ...
after all these years I still can't appreciate the look of leeboards.
So, my modified layout would be... Big settee/berth area in the bow,
head and galley midships and a pair of quarter berths aft. Short trunk
cabin to be able to stand up in the galley and head areas. I'd also
add more sail area and an inboard, lots of light-wind and no-wind days
here on the Canadian west coast.
RonB.
On 18-Oct-10, at 4:03 PM, Eric wrote:
> Romp's hull form works very well. It is ROGUE's hull form. Though
> I have not had ROGUE out in ocean waves it handles chop very well,
> and is fast against racer/cruiser hulls several feet longer in winds
> 25 mph gusting to 35mph (measured on deck). (In lighter winds the
> eight oz mailsail is too stiff to give an accurate account of
> capability. Though ROGUE did not fair badly.) I had no trouble
> fitting rigidly pinned leeboards in place of the centerboard, and I
> believe that ROMP could be stretched to advantage regards planking
> up and performance. The ease of planking and fitting out largely or
> completely offsetting the added cost of materials. The hull would
> be more easily driven so no more sail area or engine HP would be
> required for the same performance. I directly scaled down ROMP from
> 30' to 26' and found planking the lower part of the hull to be
> difficult because of tight curves and brittle Western Red Cedar. I
> built ROGUE strip planked, epoxy/fiberglass sheathed inside and out.
> Eric
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Ron Badley <sn1834@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I've spent too much time staring at design #372, chapter 15 in
>> "Different Boats". The boat looks like a wonderful cruiser for a
>> small
>> family.
>>
>> The transom has me wondering though. It seems overly pinched. All
>> the other designs of similar hull shape that I have access to have
>> much fuller sterns. Why would Romp be any different?
>>
>> RonB.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Hi Gary, Any idea why there was so much speed difference between the "good" and "bad" tack. I have noticed no difference on ROGUE. ROGUE's mainsail is just a cut off eight oz mainsail from a larger boat. It is cut much too flat and it much too stiff to be ideal in light air. Over 20 mph it is fine. Since you also used 8 oz cloth that is not the variable. The two I can think of are force used to raise the sail (I use a two speed winch and tighten the halyard tight enough that there is little twist to the sail on any tack.); and cut of the sail, Bolger stating that the ideal is to be cut with the fullness of a genoa (which strikes me as correct).
Tacking a small lug sail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Gp71JdmPs&feature=related
This is how I will tack my 450 or so square foot lateen sail. I will probably have to handle the tack line as well, pulling the foot of the yard near the mast as the sail comes round to the other tack.
(Sorry for addressing Pippo instead of Gary and needing to repost.)
Eric
Tacking a small lug sail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-Gp71JdmPs&feature=related
This is how I will tack my 450 or so square foot lateen sail. I will probably have to handle the tack line as well, pulling the foot of the yard near the mast as the sail comes round to the other tack.
(Sorry for addressing Pippo instead of Gary and needing to repost.)
Eric
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@...> wrote:
>
> Pippo:
> Tacking was relatively straightforward, but time consuming, usually taking around 3 minutes. The tack was on a traveler, so it could be set to windward. For solo work, I needed an autopilot to tend the tiller while I handled the sails. All controls for raising and lowering the sails and for tacking were led to the cockpit. The process for tacking was to release the tack traveler, so the tack would on its own go from the windward side of the deck to the leeward side. The control line was cleated to hold it there. Then the autopilot was set to tack the boat, and I'd drop the sail as quick as I could as the boat came through the wind. Then I raise the other sail (now on the leeward side). Bolger had expected I could raise the sails without winches, but that never worked, at least in part because I had the sails overbuilt from 8 oz. sailcloth. 6 ounce probably would have sufficed and maybe even 4.5. Bolger told me he was able to raise the 450-square foot dipping lug on Resolution by hand, so it must have been fairly light material. (My sails are 385 square feet). It might have been better to complete the tack with the first sail left up, now on the windward size of the mast. The boat goes very slowly with the sail set that way, but it does go. then raise the second sail behind it, and lower the windward sail only when the leeward one is up. There might be some chaff against the mast, but I don't think it would be serious.
>
> I never saw any way to counterweight the sails so the one coming down helps raise the one going up. For one thing, at the end of a sail, both have to be lowered together. Also, it might be necessary to partially lower one to tie a reef in.
>
> Bolger also came up with a way to tack a single dippling lug without completely lowering it. I played with that once, but without much luck, or at least any improvement in tacking speed. On the plans drawning, you'll notice the front of the cabin and the aft side of the mast make a V-shaped area, and the sail kept getting hung up there. Seems like there should be a way to address that, but I wasn't interested enough to push in. As noted above, with two sails of with one using the Bolger method it took about 3 minutes to tack, if nothing went wrong.
>
> One weakness of the dipping lug rig is while they could be raised & lowered from the cockpit, they couldn't be reefed from there. It required a trip over the deck, or standing in the forward hatch to tie in the reef point at the tack. Since by definition the wind is going to be up and the seas rough, it's likely to be at least a wet proposition. I have been able to rig reefing lines that lead to the cockpit for the balanced lug.
>
> If you haven't seen them, here's some links to YouTube videos of the boat, one a walking tour and the other sailing on the water. This is of the new, higher and longer cabin, The part where I walk around the mast wouldn't be possible there as with the original design there was about 3 feet of headroom there -- not even enough to use the porta-potti.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq2Ehije3Dk
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7AlSqLrD74
>
> A couple other sailing videos should show up on the list to the right if you look at these. I like the view through those big, Lexan windows!
>
> Gary
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Pippo" <pippobianco@> wrote:
> >
> > Gary
> > since we're here, one more question: how does one tack with the P&S dipping lugs? I would imagine that one rig counterbalances the other, so the hoisting/lowering effor might be greatly reduced...
> >
> > Pippo
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@> wrote:
> > >
> > > What rig would you use? Lot of work tacking as a dipping lugger (partly because I had the sails made extra heavy). I like the balanced lugger. At one point, Bolger drew up a Chinese lug for me, but I decided to stay with the balance lug.
> >
>
Pippo:
Let me answer you in reverse order:'
3) No, the windvane isn't particularly detailed in the plans; you'd need to know how they work, especially the linkage, to build it. I never did, so have no experience with it. I've only used an autopilot.
2) in the original version, the cockpit is flush decked with a hatch in the middle. A footwell was added in the revised version, and the inset was built to bring the outboard in off a mount on the transom. the original cockpit was big enough to carry a Tortoise dinghy upside down, which was feasible if the inside steering was hooked up. I only installed about half the inside steering, so I could use the autopilot under the cockpit hatch, where it would be more protected from the weather. My system had too much play, but it should be able to be done so the inside steering would work.
1) The keel is a hollow steel fin with lead poured into the bottom; the lead has to be melted and poured in small amounts to prevent the steel from distorting. I had my first keel made from stainless steel and it lasted without visible problems for about 12 years. The wing keel was made out of regular steel by a steel boatbuilder and coated with epoxy. It wasn't well made and the epoxy hasn't lasted well and has to be renewed at every haulout. Hence my interest in rebuilding out of ply, steel bars, lead & epoxy . . . The brief for the boat was to be easy to build, even at the expense of ease of moving around. The keel was mounted in a case. Basically, it looked like a centerboard trunk that was about 18 inches high and bisected the main cabin. The keel is bolted into the case with two 3/4" stainless bolts. It also means that there is an 18" wall on the bulkhead between the main cabin and the galley/chart table cabin that you have to step over when going for and aft. If you looked at the videos in my last post, you can see the presnt keel case, which is much higher than the original one, but allows the shorter keel to be retracted like a centerboard. The original keel drew 7 feet; because of the shoal water around here it was reduced to 5.5 feet (the wing keel is 4' 9"). she's more stable with the deeper keel. It has 1,000 pounds of lead at the bottom.
BTW on the dipping vs. the balanced lug: The dipping lug is faster on the wind, they're about equal reaching, the the balanced lug is faster running, because the boom holds the foot of the sail out better.
Gary
Let me answer you in reverse order:'
3) No, the windvane isn't particularly detailed in the plans; you'd need to know how they work, especially the linkage, to build it. I never did, so have no experience with it. I've only used an autopilot.
2) in the original version, the cockpit is flush decked with a hatch in the middle. A footwell was added in the revised version, and the inset was built to bring the outboard in off a mount on the transom. the original cockpit was big enough to carry a Tortoise dinghy upside down, which was feasible if the inside steering was hooked up. I only installed about half the inside steering, so I could use the autopilot under the cockpit hatch, where it would be more protected from the weather. My system had too much play, but it should be able to be done so the inside steering would work.
1) The keel is a hollow steel fin with lead poured into the bottom; the lead has to be melted and poured in small amounts to prevent the steel from distorting. I had my first keel made from stainless steel and it lasted without visible problems for about 12 years. The wing keel was made out of regular steel by a steel boatbuilder and coated with epoxy. It wasn't well made and the epoxy hasn't lasted well and has to be renewed at every haulout. Hence my interest in rebuilding out of ply, steel bars, lead & epoxy . . . The brief for the boat was to be easy to build, even at the expense of ease of moving around. The keel was mounted in a case. Basically, it looked like a centerboard trunk that was about 18 inches high and bisected the main cabin. The keel is bolted into the case with two 3/4" stainless bolts. It also means that there is an 18" wall on the bulkhead between the main cabin and the galley/chart table cabin that you have to step over when going for and aft. If you looked at the videos in my last post, you can see the presnt keel case, which is much higher than the original one, but allows the shorter keel to be retracted like a centerboard. The original keel drew 7 feet; because of the shoal water around here it was reduced to 5.5 feet (the wing keel is 4' 9"). she's more stable with the deeper keel. It has 1,000 pounds of lead at the bottom.
BTW on the dipping vs. the balanced lug: The dipping lug is faster on the wind, they're about equal reaching, the the balanced lug is faster running, because the boom holds the foot of the sail out better.
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Pippo" <pippobianco@...> wrote:
>
> Gary
> thanks so much...
> I'd like to ask you something about the keel and the rudder system.
>
> 1) how is the ballasted keel made? How is it bolted to the hull? Do you think it's a critical item?
>
> 2) it looks like there's no cockpit and that the tiller for hand steering is inside. How does this work in practice?
>
> 3) is the windvane detailed in the plans? How does it work?
>
> Cheers
>
> Pippo
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@> wrote:
>
> > A couple other sailing videos should show up on the list to the right if you look at these. I like the view through those big, Lexan windows!
>
I stand corrected, and encourage you in every way. I was a bit too flip saying you would gain almost nothing by chopping 6' out of a 38' boat. Scaling down would reduce displacement, IF simplicity was retained. On the other hand, greater simplicity of interior could reduce displacement on the same length and the same sail plan would drive the easier to drive longer hull of the same or little more displacement faster than the shorter boat. Furthermore, I was concerned about your need for headroom. The longer the boat the easier it is to get headroom. Stability can be increased fastest by increasing breadth, but that can reduce ultimate stability/self-righting (the old IOR boats are more stable upside down than right side up) Length also increases stability.
Please keep us informed of your design progress. In that regard I encourage you to employ a real naval architect at some point prior to building for all the reasons you say, and all the reasons I am lucky to have a boat that works at all.
Eric
Please keep us informed of your design progress. In that regard I encourage you to employ a real naval architect at some point prior to building for all the reasons you say, and all the reasons I am lucky to have a boat that works at all.
Eric
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kent <kent@...> wrote:
>
> I understand that the real measure of a boat is the displacement, not
> the length. By that same principle, why do you think that I would
> "gain almost nothing" by chopping 6 feet out of a 38-foot hull? I'm
> not trying to pack the original functionality into a smaller hull;
> I'm giving up an entire room with two desks and a settee.
>
> AS39 is about 10,000 lbs., and I think I can get by with more like
> 8,000. That will allow me to reduce the size of the rig down to
> something I'm familiar with. My current boat has a 192 sq. ft. main
> and a 120 sq. ft. mizzen. For a 32-footer, I could make a cat
> schooner rig with two of the 192-ft. sails; that should be about
> right for 8,0000 lbs.
>
> Besides, as Mike suggested, I expect to use the boat inland or along
> the East & Gulf coasts. I have no desire to cross oceans, or win
> races. I do like a boat that's maneuverable, and can explore nooks
> and crannies; that's half the fun of shallow draft.
>
> After buying two boats, I feel like I've spent much of the last 15
> years looking at other people's designs, and thinking, "Wow, that one
> would be perfect for me, if only ..." I'm tired of that. Besides, I
> like designing things; using someone else's plan would deprive me of
> the best part of the process.
>
> -- Kent
>
>
>
> >As for what you want to do with Loose Moose, why shorten it. You
> >gain almost nothing is material or cost savings. I have nearly
> >replied to several prior posts about other boats and people need to
> >pay attention to Phil's comment about a short trawler he
> >designed. He packed forty feet of boat into twenty-eight feet and
> >said that the shorter boat would likely cost just as much because of
> >the complications involved in building it, performance would be
> >less, and the only savings would be dock fees. This is my
> >experience with ROGUE. I have fervently wished I had stretched the
> >station spacing and built ROGUE to 30'. I suggest you rework the
> >interior of Loose Moose and not design another boat. Design an easy
> >to build interior that flexibly fits your current and unknown future desires.
>
Romp's hull form works very well. It is ROGUE's hull form. Though I have not had ROGUE out in ocean waves it handles chop very well, and is fast against racer/cruiser hulls several feet longer in winds 25 mph gusting to 35mph (measured on deck). (In lighter winds the eight oz mailsail is too stiff to give an accurate account of capability. Though ROGUE did not fair badly.) I had no trouble fitting rigidly pinned leeboards in place of the centerboard, and I believe that ROMP could be stretched to advantage regards planking up and performance. The ease of planking and fitting out largely or completely offsetting the added cost of materials. The hull would be more easily driven so no more sail area or engine HP would be required for the same performance. I directly scaled down ROMP from 30' to 26' and found planking the lower part of the hull to be difficult because of tight curves and brittle Western Red Cedar. I built ROGUE strip planked, epoxy/fiberglass sheathed inside and out.
Eric
Eric
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Ron Badley <sn1834@...> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I've spent too much time staring at design #372, chapter 15 in
> "Different Boats". The boat looks like a wonderful cruiser for a small
> family.
>
> The transom has me wondering though. It seems overly pinched. All
> the other designs of similar hull shape that I have access to have
> much fuller sterns. Why would Romp be any different?
>
> RonB.
>
Hey,
I've spent too much time staring at design #372, chapter 15 in
"Different Boats". The boat looks like a wonderful cruiser for a small
family.
The transom has me wondering though. It seems overly pinched. All
the other designs of similar hull shape that I have access to have
much fuller sterns. Why would Romp be any different?
RonB.
I've spent too much time staring at design #372, chapter 15 in
"Different Boats". The boat looks like a wonderful cruiser for a small
family.
The transom has me wondering though. It seems overly pinched. All
the other designs of similar hull shape that I have access to have
much fuller sterns. Why would Romp be any different?
RonB.
Gary
thanks so much...
I'd like to ask you something about the keel and the rudder system.
1) how is the ballasted keel made? How is it bolted to the hull? Do you think it's a critical item?
2) it looks like there's no cockpit and that the tiller for hand steering is inside. How does this work in practice?
3) is the windvane detailed in the plans? How does it work?
Cheers
Pippo
thanks so much...
I'd like to ask you something about the keel and the rudder system.
1) how is the ballasted keel made? How is it bolted to the hull? Do you think it's a critical item?
2) it looks like there's no cockpit and that the tiller for hand steering is inside. How does this work in practice?
3) is the windvane detailed in the plans? How does it work?
Cheers
Pippo
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@...> wrote:
> A couple other sailing videos should show up on the list to the right if you look at these. I like the view through those big, Lexan windows!
Pippo:
Tacking was relatively straightforward, but time consuming, usually taking around 3 minutes. The tack was on a traveler, so it could be set to windward. For solo work, I needed an autopilot to tend the tiller while I handled the sails. All controls for raising and lowering the sails and for tacking were led to the cockpit. The process for tacking was to release the tack traveler, so the tack would on its own go from the windward side of the deck to the leeward side. The control line was cleated to hold it there. Then the autopilot was set to tack the boat, and I'd drop the sail as quick as I could as the boat came through the wind. Then I raise the other sail (now on the leeward side). Bolger had expected I could raise the sails without winches, but that never worked, at least in part because I had the sails overbuilt from 8 oz. sailcloth. 6 ounce probably would have sufficed and maybe even 4.5. Bolger told me he was able to raise the 450-square foot dipping lug on Resolution by hand, so it must have been fairly light material. (My sails are 385 square feet). It might have been better to complete the tack with the first sail left up, now on the windward size of the mast. The boat goes very slowly with the sail set that way, but it does go. then raise the second sail behind it, and lower the windward sail only when the leeward one is up. There might be some chaff against the mast, but I don't think it would be serious.
I never saw any way to counterweight the sails so the one coming down helps raise the one going up. For one thing, at the end of a sail, both have to be lowered together. Also, it might be necessary to partially lower one to tie a reef in.
Bolger also came up with a way to tack a single dippling lug without completely lowering it. I played with that once, but without much luck, or at least any improvement in tacking speed. On the plans drawning, you'll notice the front of the cabin and the aft side of the mast make a V-shaped area, and the sail kept getting hung up there. Seems like there should be a way to address that, but I wasn't interested enough to push in. As noted above, with two sails of with one using the Bolger method it took about 3 minutes to tack, if nothing went wrong.
One weakness of the dipping lug rig is while they could be raised & lowered from the cockpit, they couldn't be reefed from there. It required a trip over the deck, or standing in the forward hatch to tie in the reef point at the tack. Since by definition the wind is going to be up and the seas rough, it's likely to be at least a wet proposition. I have been able to rig reefing lines that lead to the cockpit for the balanced lug.
If you haven't seen them, here's some links to YouTube videos of the boat, one a walking tour and the other sailing on the water. This is of the new, higher and longer cabin, The part where I walk around the mast wouldn't be possible there as with the original design there was about 3 feet of headroom there -- not even enough to use the porta-potti.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq2Ehije3Dk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7AlSqLrD74
A couple other sailing videos should show up on the list to the right if you look at these. I like the view through those big, Lexan windows!
Gary
Tacking was relatively straightforward, but time consuming, usually taking around 3 minutes. The tack was on a traveler, so it could be set to windward. For solo work, I needed an autopilot to tend the tiller while I handled the sails. All controls for raising and lowering the sails and for tacking were led to the cockpit. The process for tacking was to release the tack traveler, so the tack would on its own go from the windward side of the deck to the leeward side. The control line was cleated to hold it there. Then the autopilot was set to tack the boat, and I'd drop the sail as quick as I could as the boat came through the wind. Then I raise the other sail (now on the leeward side). Bolger had expected I could raise the sails without winches, but that never worked, at least in part because I had the sails overbuilt from 8 oz. sailcloth. 6 ounce probably would have sufficed and maybe even 4.5. Bolger told me he was able to raise the 450-square foot dipping lug on Resolution by hand, so it must have been fairly light material. (My sails are 385 square feet). It might have been better to complete the tack with the first sail left up, now on the windward size of the mast. The boat goes very slowly with the sail set that way, but it does go. then raise the second sail behind it, and lower the windward sail only when the leeward one is up. There might be some chaff against the mast, but I don't think it would be serious.
I never saw any way to counterweight the sails so the one coming down helps raise the one going up. For one thing, at the end of a sail, both have to be lowered together. Also, it might be necessary to partially lower one to tie a reef in.
Bolger also came up with a way to tack a single dippling lug without completely lowering it. I played with that once, but without much luck, or at least any improvement in tacking speed. On the plans drawning, you'll notice the front of the cabin and the aft side of the mast make a V-shaped area, and the sail kept getting hung up there. Seems like there should be a way to address that, but I wasn't interested enough to push in. As noted above, with two sails of with one using the Bolger method it took about 3 minutes to tack, if nothing went wrong.
One weakness of the dipping lug rig is while they could be raised & lowered from the cockpit, they couldn't be reefed from there. It required a trip over the deck, or standing in the forward hatch to tie in the reef point at the tack. Since by definition the wind is going to be up and the seas rough, it's likely to be at least a wet proposition. I have been able to rig reefing lines that lead to the cockpit for the balanced lug.
If you haven't seen them, here's some links to YouTube videos of the boat, one a walking tour and the other sailing on the water. This is of the new, higher and longer cabin, The part where I walk around the mast wouldn't be possible there as with the original design there was about 3 feet of headroom there -- not even enough to use the porta-potti.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq2Ehije3Dk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7AlSqLrD74
A couple other sailing videos should show up on the list to the right if you look at these. I like the view through those big, Lexan windows!
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Pippo" <pippobianco@...> wrote:
>
> Gary
> since we're here, one more question: how does one tack with the P&S dipping lugs? I would imagine that one rig counterbalances the other, so the hoisting/lowering effor might be greatly reduced...
>
> Pippo
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@> wrote:
> >
> > What rig would you use? Lot of work tacking as a dipping lugger (partly because I had the sails made extra heavy). I like the balanced lugger. At one point, Bolger drew up a Chinese lug for me, but I decided to stay with the balance lug.
>
Yes, I'd love to see some sketches of the AS-34. But, 17,000
lbs.? I thought AS-39 was only around 10,000 lbs., or did I mis-read
something?
-- Kent
lbs.? I thought AS-39 was only around 10,000 lbs., or did I mis-read
something?
-- Kent
>Anyone else hungry to see a sketch of the AS-34 including interior
>arrangements and arrangements for in deck dinghies?
I understand that the real measure of a boat is the displacement, not
the length. By that same principle, why do you think that I would
"gain almost nothing" by chopping 6 feet out of a 38-foot hull? I'm
not trying to pack the original functionality into a smaller hull;
I'm giving up an entire room with two desks and a settee.
AS39 is about 10,000 lbs., and I think I can get by with more like
8,000. That will allow me to reduce the size of the rig down to
something I'm familiar with. My current boat has a 192 sq. ft. main
and a 120 sq. ft. mizzen. For a 32-footer, I could make a cat
schooner rig with two of the 192-ft. sails; that should be about
right for 8,0000 lbs.
Besides, as Mike suggested, I expect to use the boat inland or along
the East & Gulf coasts. I have no desire to cross oceans, or win
races. I do like a boat that's maneuverable, and can explore nooks
and crannies; that's half the fun of shallow draft.
After buying two boats, I feel like I've spent much of the last 15
years looking at other people's designs, and thinking, "Wow, that one
would be perfect for me, if only ..." I'm tired of that. Besides, I
like designing things; using someone else's plan would deprive me of
the best part of the process.
-- Kent
the length. By that same principle, why do you think that I would
"gain almost nothing" by chopping 6 feet out of a 38-foot hull? I'm
not trying to pack the original functionality into a smaller hull;
I'm giving up an entire room with two desks and a settee.
AS39 is about 10,000 lbs., and I think I can get by with more like
8,000. That will allow me to reduce the size of the rig down to
something I'm familiar with. My current boat has a 192 sq. ft. main
and a 120 sq. ft. mizzen. For a 32-footer, I could make a cat
schooner rig with two of the 192-ft. sails; that should be about
right for 8,0000 lbs.
Besides, as Mike suggested, I expect to use the boat inland or along
the East & Gulf coasts. I have no desire to cross oceans, or win
races. I do like a boat that's maneuverable, and can explore nooks
and crannies; that's half the fun of shallow draft.
After buying two boats, I feel like I've spent much of the last 15
years looking at other people's designs, and thinking, "Wow, that one
would be perfect for me, if only ..." I'm tired of that. Besides, I
like designing things; using someone else's plan would deprive me of
the best part of the process.
-- Kent
>As for what you want to do with Loose Moose, why shorten it. You
>gain almost nothing is material or cost savings. I have nearly
>replied to several prior posts about other boats and people need to
>pay attention to Phil's comment about a short trawler he
>designed. He packed forty feet of boat into twenty-eight feet and
>said that the shorter boat would likely cost just as much because of
>the complications involved in building it, performance would be
>less, and the only savings would be dock fees. This is my
>experience with ROGUE. I have fervently wished I had stretched the
>station spacing and built ROGUE to 30'. I suggest you rework the
>interior of Loose Moose and not design another boat. Design an easy
>to build interior that flexibly fits your current and unknown future desires.
Anyone else hungry to see a sketch of the AS-34 including interior arrangements and arrangements for in deck dinghies? One or more dinghies is an absolute necessity on any cruising boat that will anchor out rather than always find a marina dock and fees, and seldom is the dinghy given any though during the design process. It has been driving me crazy on my boat.
Stefano,
This AS-34 is only a foot and a half too long. I'll bet you could chop off a foot and a half of the bow without ruining the boat. Get it officially measured. And then bolt a bow section back on. Make it out of rubber and you can call it a "fender" that is not part of the boat. Lots of people sail around without stowing their fenders.
Eric
Stefano,
This AS-34 is only a foot and a half too long. I'll bet you could chop off a foot and a half of the bow without ruining the boat. Get it officially measured. And then bolt a bow section back on. Make it out of rubber and you can call it a "fender" that is not part of the boat. Lots of people sail around without stowing their fenders.
Eric
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Stefano" <gordas@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Kent <kent@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm envisioning a sort of "AS32:" a boxy, plywood sharpie with
> >
> > There is a very solid rumor that there is an unfinished AS34 design on
> > the PB&F drawing boards, not far from the wish list you describe.
> > Perhaps AS34 might be finished someday by Susanne Altenberger?
> >
>
> This is what Susanne answered me about my suggestion about an AS 32:
>
> "As to the AS-32, we did start such a hull - closer to 34' - to much heavier scantlings than the AS-29, intended for long-distance cruising/living aboard for two, with below-decks overnighting for 4 plus two in the cockpit. A fully-battened Gaff-Cat Yawl she'd have 11+feet of beam, 20" of draft (centerboard up), weigh in at 17,000lbs with likely 700 sq. ft of light-air sail-area, powered by a 50hp large-prop outboard such as YAMAHA T-50.
> While still a 'sharpie' in plywood, the hull-shape is a much more evolved geometry than the AS-29 or AS-39 types for instance for better head-sea action and more headroom and storage well into her ends. She has flare in her topsides, a sharp bow, a raised-deck silhouette with two hard dinghies sunken into that deck, and a hard dodger for two +.
> On her terms, we liked her a lot as a rigorous study under length-constraints. But so far she is just an 'in-house' speculation (Design # 676) in an early stage but fully defined"
>
> I think that if someone was interested in such a boat than he would just have to ask Susanne to complete that design.
>
> For my needs 34' is too long. Italian burocracy about boats leaps up at 10 meters: up to 9.99 you don't need a registration number or a licence if you keep whithin 6 miles from the shore (which is just what I have in mind).
>
> Ste
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
"As to the AS-32, we did start such a hull - closer to 34' - to much heavier scantlings than the AS-29, intended for long-distance cruising/living aboard for two, with below-decks overnighting for 4 plus two in the cockpit. A fully-battened Gaff-Cat Yawl she'd have 11+feet of beam, 20" of draft (centerboard up), weigh in at 17,000lbs with likely 700 sq. ft of light-air sail-area, powered by a 50hp large-prop outboard such as YAMAHA T-50.
While still a 'sharpie' in plywood, the hull-shape is a much more evolved geometry than the AS-29 or AS-39 types for instance for better head-sea action and more headroom and storage well into her ends. She has flare in her topsides, a sharp bow, a raised-deck silhouette with two hard dinghies sunken into that deck, and a hard dodger for two +.
On her terms, we liked her a lot as a rigorous study under length-constraints. But so far she is just an 'in-house' speculation (Design # 676) in an early stage but fully defined"
I think that if someone was interested in such a boat than he would just have to ask Susanne to complete that design.
For my needs 34' is too long. Italian burocracy about boats leaps up at 10 meters: up to 9.99 you don't need a registration number or a licence if you keep whithin 6 miles from the shore (which is just what I have in mind).
Ste
>This is what Susanne answered me about my suggestion about an AS 32:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Kent <kent@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm envisioning a sort of "AS32:" a boxy, plywood sharpie with
>
> There is a very solid rumor that there is an unfinished AS34 design on
> the PB&F drawing boards, not far from the wish list you describe.
> Perhaps AS34 might be finished someday by Susanne Altenberger?
>
"As to the AS-32, we did start such a hull - closer to 34' - to much heavier scantlings than the AS-29, intended for long-distance cruising/living aboard for two, with below-decks overnighting for 4 plus two in the cockpit. A fully-battened Gaff-Cat Yawl she'd have 11+feet of beam, 20" of draft (centerboard up), weigh in at 17,000lbs with likely 700 sq. ft of light-air sail-area, powered by a 50hp large-prop outboard such as YAMAHA T-50.
While still a 'sharpie' in plywood, the hull-shape is a much more evolved geometry than the AS-29 or AS-39 types for instance for better head-sea action and more headroom and storage well into her ends. She has flare in her topsides, a sharp bow, a raised-deck silhouette with two hard dinghies sunken into that deck, and a hard dodger for two +.
On her terms, we liked her a lot as a rigorous study under length-constraints. But so far she is just an 'in-house' speculation (Design # 676) in an early stage but fully defined"
I think that if someone was interested in such a boat than he would just have to ask Susanne to complete that design.
For my needs 34' is too long. Italian burocracy about boats leaps up at 10 meters: up to 9.99 you don't need a registration number or a licence if you keep whithin 6 miles from the shore (which is just what I have in mind).
Ste
Gary
since we're here, one more question: how does one tack with the P&S dipping lugs? I would imagine that one rig counterbalances the other, so the hoisting/lowering effor might be greatly reduced...
Pippo
since we're here, one more question: how does one tack with the P&S dipping lugs? I would imagine that one rig counterbalances the other, so the hoisting/lowering effor might be greatly reduced...
Pippo
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@...> wrote:
>
> What rig would you use? Lot of work tacking as a dipping lugger (partly because I had the sails made extra heavy). I like the balanced lugger. At one point, Bolger drew up a Chinese lug for me, but I decided to stay with the balance lug.
That modern 30 ft presto is absolutely gorgeous i'm getting old and need some Walking room to work out the stiffness
Dave and Onka-- Triloboats have probably 15-20 years of full time livaboard experience they know the value of volume. In SE Alaska you got room and food and they have the luxury of not having to work....idealic lifestyle. Fine people, check out their podcast on Furled Sails Erics right again, they live in protected waters, that's my favorite place too...not quite as demanding as ocean cruising Mike
76 30 ft Cherobini -4ft draft 10 ft beam 6ft 2in head room
6 FT3 :c
Eric wrote:
>
> P.S. Have you folks seenhttp://triloboats.com?Any thoughts?
>
Not on an ocean!
As for what you want to do with Loose Moose, why shorten it. You gain almost nothing is material or cost savings. I have nearly replied to several prior posts about other boats and people need to pay attention to Phil's comment about a short trawler he designed. He packed forty feet of boat into twenty-eight feet and said that the shorter boat would likely cost just as much because of the complications involved in building it, performance would be less, and the only savings would be dock fees. This is my experience with ROGUE. I have fervently wished I had stretched the station spacing and built ROGUE to 30'. I suggest you rework the interior of Loose Moose and not design another boat. Design an easy to build interior that flexibly fits your current and unknown future desires.
On ROGUE I have standing head room for people 6' tall only in open hatches and for six linear feet in the galley. I am 5'11. 4'8" headroom works just fine: crouch and go. 5'8" headroom would be horrible because it is neither enough to force crouching nor enough to stand. Head banger headroom. Phil did not and I do not feel a boat needs standing headroom throughout. I frankly think a boat could be comfortable with generous sitting headroom and not standing headroom provided the galley was designed for very comfortable sitting while cooking and cleaning up. I think it is a mistake to spoil a boat by trying to get standing head room where it is not needed. However, give yourself the headroom that will allow you to stand comfortably where you need standing headroom. Build a longer (perhaps wider) boat to get it if you need to. Boats cost by the pound, not the linear feet. Assuming the same interior a 40' boat does not cost significantly more than that boat compressed into 30', and the longer boat will perform significantly better.
Eric
Gary
I like the idea of the double sail but have zero experience with that kind of rig and do not know nor imagine what it takes to tack.
In general I would tend to use the original designer idea...
I guess I'll write to Susanne to order a set of plans...
Pippo
I like the idea of the double sail but have zero experience with that kind of rig and do not know nor imagine what it takes to tack.
In general I would tend to use the original designer idea...
I guess I'll write to Susanne to order a set of plans...
Pippo
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "gary" <gbship@...> wrote:
>
> Pippo:
> Without question, the original version is faster and definitely better looking! Kind of Ironic that right after it was modified with the longer cabin, I heard about the Jester Challenge. Might have been tempted to enter if the boat were still in the original form. for it's capabilities, it's an incredibly quick boat to build; mine took 400 to 500 hours but with a workboat, not yacht, finish. The original cabin had less than 5 feet of headroom; I think it was about 4'8". Plenty of room to sit comfortably. Now it has about 5'8".
>
> What rig would you use? Lot of work tacking as a dipping lugger (partly because I had the sails made extra heavy). I like the balanced lugger. At one point, Bolger drew up a Chinese lug for me, but I decided to stay with the balance lug.
>
> Gary
>
>Not on an ocean!
> P.S. Have you folks seenhttp://triloboats.com?Any thoughts?
>
As for what you want to do with Loose Moose, why shorten it. You gain almost nothing is material or cost savings. I have nearly replied to several prior posts about other boats and people need to pay attention to Phil's comment about a short trawler he designed. He packed forty feet of boat into twenty-eight feet and said that the shorter boat would likely cost just as much because of the complications involved in building it, performance would be less, and the only savings would be dock fees. This is my experience with ROGUE. I have fervently wished I had stretched the station spacing and built ROGUE to 30'. I suggest you rework the interior of Loose Moose and not design another boat. Design an easy to build interior that flexibly fits your current and unknown future desires.
On ROGUE I have standing head room for people 6' tall only in open hatches and for six linear feet in the galley. I am 5'11. 4'8" headroom works just fine: crouch and go. 5'8" headroom would be horrible because it is neither enough to force crouching nor enough to stand. Head banger headroom. Phil did not and I do not feel a boat needs standing headroom throughout. I frankly think a boat could be comfortable with generous sitting headroom and not standing headroom provided the galley was designed for very comfortable sitting while cooking and cleaning up. I think it is a mistake to spoil a boat by trying to get standing head room where it is not needed. However, give yourself the headroom that will allow you to stand comfortably where you need standing headroom. Build a longer (perhaps wider) boat to get it if you need to. Boats cost by the pound, not the linear feet. Assuming the same interior a 40' boat does not cost significantly more than that boat compressed into 30', and the longer boat will perform significantly better.
Eric
> I'm a Munroe fan; I've read "The Commodore'sIIRC, Scott designed a big sister to the Beachcomber which was not a success, being too tender.
> Story" and "The Good Little Ship."
Bolger designed a number of Presto-like craft. He drew Presto lines for a version of Black Gauntlet II, including a minimum of notes about the construction. Reading between the lines, I guess you want a boat with more headroom.
I can't remember that he ever did a stretched version of Seabird '86. It might have been an interesting way to get an amateur-buildable, shoal draft boat with a more graceful shape than the sharpie.
Hi Mike --
Thanks for all the ideas and experience. Rather than stretching a short boat, you could visualize my idea better by starting with the Loose Moose II (AS39) and cutting out that office to shorten her by 6ft. or so, with the same width and height, or maybe a little more.
I'm tall, 6'3", and I'd like a boat with a lot of standing headroom, not just a few square feet in the galley and head. I'm envisioning a "sailing houseboat;" hey, I figured, as long as I'm dreaming, dream big!
This of course raises issues of windage and stability that will have to be considered carefully. I can learn to do the math, and I know that there's software that can do a lot of it for me. I've got Delftship Free, and I may spring for the paid version at some point. But still, for a project this big, I'll probably want a pro to check my work before I start cutting plywood.
-- Kent
P.S. Have you folks seenhttp://triloboats.com? Any thoughts?
Thanks for all the ideas and experience. Rather than stretching a short boat, you could visualize my idea better by starting with the Loose Moose II (AS39) and cutting out that office to shorten her by 6ft. or so, with the same width and height, or maybe a little more.
I'm tall, 6'3", and I'd like a boat with a lot of standing headroom, not just a few square feet in the galley and head. I'm envisioning a "sailing houseboat;" hey, I figured, as long as I'm dreaming, dream big!
This of course raises issues of windage and stability that will have to be considered carefully. I can learn to do the math, and I know that there's software that can do a lot of it for me. I've got Delftship Free, and I may spring for the paid version at some point. But still, for a project this big, I'll probably want a pro to check my work before I start cutting plywood.
-- Kent
P.S. Have you folks seenhttp://triloboats.com? Any thoughts?
That said, I've also seen lots of fisherman who needed a larger boat but didn't want to start anew , simply cut theirs in half,add a length to the middle and put it back together!!! Usually not adding more power even tho displacement went way up(JUST WHAT THE FISHERMAN WANTED).......If you go to older design firms selling simple designs,sharpies and dories, they say, you can increase length by 10 % (never increase beam),usually adding to each station.
>I liked the Beachcomber when I saw them at boat shows, and there wasFrom what I've read on the Beachcomber Yahoo group, the rotating
>one docked next to me for a couple years. I wondered what the owner
>would do if some part of the unique rotating mast rig were to break.
>I like the look of your rig. It may work better than the original.
masts do cause problems sometimes, mainly due to friction caused by
sand in the works, aging parts corroding, etc. Some owners have
switched to other systems. I, of course, bypassed the issue entirely
:^) . To reef a junk sail, you just let out the halyard, and take up
the slack in the sheet -- you might have to round up first, depending
on conditions.
>Your wish list sounds a little like Roger Martin's new Presto 30.Thanks for the link. I saw that boat in a magazine, and was hoping
>Seehttp://www.rodgermartindesign.com/portfolio.php?item=82
to find more info. I'm a Munroe fan; I've read "The Commodore's
Story" and "The Good Little Ship." Walt Scott, who designed the
Beachcomber, must have read them too; the Beachcomber's lines and
general design are very Presto-y. I have a picture of Munroe's
Melody on my wall for inspiration, next to one of Loose Moose II (AS39).
Phil mentions working with Jim Michalak and Jim has a few Bolger inspired boat designs out there.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kent <kent@...> wrote:
>
> Hi folks --
>
> I'm a newby here, been lurking for a while. I'm a Bolger fan, and a
> fan of unconventional boats in general. I currently sail a
> production hull, a Beachcomber 25, which had no rig at all when I
> bought her; the mast sails, and rigging are my own design. I have a
> photo on-line if you're interested, at
>http://themagicm.com/kent/some-junk.jpg.
>
> For my next boat, I'm thinking of designing my own hull. I have an
> engineering background, so this is not as crazy as it sounds ... and
> I'm smart enough to know my own limitations. So I'd like to find a
> professional who would work with me as a consultant, to give advice
> and review my work.
>
> I'm envisioning a sort of "AS32:" a boxy, plywood sharpie with
> shallow draft, leeboards, and a rig similar to my current boat. I've
> already exchanged email with some architects, and it seems to be hard
> to find someone who won't object to some of the above
> criteria. Naval architects do seem to be an opinionated bunch, don't they?
>
> So I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone know of a professional who's
> Bolger-friendly, and who'd be interested in working on a project like this?
>
> Thanks & Fair Winds to everybody -- Kent
>
>
> Kent Multer |\ /|
> Magic Metal Productionshttp://TheMagicM.com/| \/ |
> KOBUSHI world percussionhttp://kobushi.com/| |
>
Hi Mike --
The masts are aluminum flagpoles. Maybe folks here already know that some boat mfrs. have used these; they were original equipment on the Beachcomber, although my boat didn't have any when I got her. David Grubb at the American Flagpole Company helped me figure out what size I'd need for the wind loads.
Junk rig is easy to build, and fun to sail, and I like their looks. There are two great books on the subject, by Hasler and Van Loan, and some Web pages with helpful info.
Glad you like the rig ... and thanks to everyone else who replied! I'm sure I'll be back here with more questions as the project goes along. I had a thread going on Boatdesign.net for a while, in case anyone wants some background:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/newby-questions-sailboat-design-32942.html
Since then, I've been doing a lot of reading, and thinking, and sketching. I think I'm ready to talk to some pros.
-- Kent
The masts are aluminum flagpoles. Maybe folks here already know that some boat mfrs. have used these; they were original equipment on the Beachcomber, although my boat didn't have any when I got her. David Grubb at the American Flagpole Company helped me figure out what size I'd need for the wind loads.
Junk rig is easy to build, and fun to sail, and I like their looks. There are two great books on the subject, by Hasler and Van Loan, and some Web pages with helpful info.
Glad you like the rig ... and thanks to everyone else who replied! I'm sure I'll be back here with more questions as the project goes along. I had a thread going on Boatdesign.net for a while, in case anyone wants some background:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/newby-questions-sailboat-design-32942.html
Since then, I've been doing a lot of reading, and thinking, and sketching. I think I'm ready to talk to some pros.
-- Kent
KENT
Great lookin rig, what did you use for masts?
Mike
Kent
A second note about your future design....this will probably get put down by most BUT... I've got a lot of experience in cruising/sailing. and have built a few boats and modified many...here's my opinion.
Sharpies are not complicated boats, a general understanding can be gotten by studying the specs of a bunch of existing designs. Long before architects started selling designs working waterman (such as yourself) build them on the off season, and there's plenty of historical proof of their seaworthiness and speed.
Bolgers genius was simplicity,efficient use of modern materials and his obvious ability to draw a beautiful line. His reasoning behind people changing his designs was quite simple, you change it...it's not my design any more. He was not at all against self design, he supported me in my (amateurish) work.
That said, I've also seen lots of fisherman who needed a larger boat but didn't want to start anew , simply cut theirs in half,add a length to the middle and put it back together!!! Usually not adding more power even tho displacement went way up(JUST WHAT THE FISHERMAN WANTED).......If you go to older design firms selling simple designs,sharpies and dories, they say, you can increase length by 10 % (never increase beam),usually adding to each station.
So ...10 % X 29 = 31.9.....Advanced sharpies have perpendicular sides and extreme rocker...cut the drawing in half extend and fair the curves, ballast to water line...you obviously know how to draw a rig,changing the size of lateral resistance and/rudder was something Bolger had to do on a lot of his designs(even with all his experience)...how's it sail hows it handle,always the bottom line. Just food for thought.
Susanne A,while I really like her work, is not P Bolger ,the simplicity is gone. If you ever build a early Bolger design and experience how simple the process is, how little scrap is left over and then step back and see the beauty that so few lines create, you'll know what I mean. Mike
Phil knew the glouster gull would get him into heaven,,,,Michalak's the boat designer you might want to talk to
mike graf wrote:
A second note about your future design....this will probably get put down by most BUT... I've got a lot of experience in cruising/sailing. and have built a few boats and modified many...here's my opinion.
Sharpies are not complicated boats, a general understanding can be gotten by studying the specs of a bunch of existing designs. Long before architects started selling designs working waterman (such as yourself) build them on the off season, and there's plenty of historical proof of their seaworthiness and speed.
Bolgers genius was simplicity,efficient use of modern materials and his obvious ability to draw a beautiful line. His reasoning behind people changing his designs was quite simple, you change it...it's not my design any more. He was not at all against self design, he supported me in my (amateurish) work.
That said, I've also seen lots of fisherman who needed a larger boat but didn't want to start anew , simply cut theirs in half,add a length to the middle and put it back together!!! Usually not adding more power even tho displacement went way up(JUST WHAT THE FISHERMAN WANTED).......If you go to older design firms selling simple designs,sharpies and dories, they say, you can increase length by 10 % (never increase beam),usually adding to each station.
So ...10 % X 29 = 31.9.....Advanced sharpies have perpendicular sides and extreme rocker...cut the drawing in half extend and fair the curves, ballast to water line...you obviously know how to draw a rig,changing the size of lateral resistance and/rudder was something Bolger had to do on a lot of his designs(even with all his experience)...how's it sail hows it handle,always the bottom line. Just food for thought.
Susanne A,while I really like her work, is not P Bolger ,the simplicity is gone. If you ever build a early Bolger design and experience how simple the process is, how little scrap is left over and then step back and see the beauty that so few lines create, you'll know what I mean. Mike
Phil knew the glouster gull would get him into heaven,,,,Michalak's the boat designer you might want to talk to
mike graf wrote:
KENT
Great lookin rig, what did you use for masts?
Mike
Kent wrote:Hi folks --
I'm a newby here, been lurking for a while. I'm a Bolger fan, and a
fan of unconventional boats in general. I currently sail a
production hull, a Beachcomber 25, which had no rig at all when I
bought her; the mast sails, and rigging are my own design. I have a
photo on-line if you're interested, at
http://themagicm.com/kent/some-junk.jpg.
For my next boat, I'm thinking of designing my own hull. I have an
engineering background, so this is not as crazy as it sounds ... and
I'm smart enough to know my own limitations. So I'd like to find a
professional who would work with me as a consultant, to give advice
and review my work.
I'm envisioning a sort of "AS32:" a boxy, plywood sharpie with
shallow draft, leeboards, and a rig similar to my current boat. I've
already exchanged email with some architects, and it seems to be hard
to find someone who won't object to some of the above
criteria. Naval architects do seem to be an opinionated bunch, don't they?
So I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone know of a professional who's
Bolger-friendly, and who'd be interested in working on a project like this?
Thanks & Fair Winds to everybody -- Kent
Kent Multer |\ /|
Magic Metal Productionshttp://TheMagicM.com/| \/ |
KOBUSHI world percussionhttp://kobushi.com/| |
> I currently sail a(This may turn out to be a duplicate post. My browser malfunctioned...)
> production hull, a Beachcomber 25, which had no rig at all when I
> bought her; the mast sails, and rigging are my own design.
I liked the Beachcomber when I saw them at boat shows, and there was one docked next to me for a couple years. I wondered what the owner would do if some part of the unique rotating mast rig were to break.
I like the look of your rig. It may work better than the original.
Your wish list sounds a little like Roger Martin's new Presto 30. Seehttp://www.rodgermartindesign.com/portfolio.php?item=82
Established designers are not set up to share the design process. They have the skill and the equipment and the process to do it all themselves.
You might contact Roger Long. He's pretty much retired, so if you get his interest stimulated, he might be willing.http://www.rogerlongboats.com/If you go to "Other boats" and scan down, you'll find he's interested in a lots of boats that are not big and steel.
Great lookin rig, what did you use for masts?
Mike
Kent wrote:
Hi folks --
I'm a newby here, been lurking for a while. I'm a Bolger fan, and a
fan of unconventional boats in general. I currently sail a
production hull, a Beachcomber 25, which had no rig at all when I
bought her; the mast sails, and rigging are my own design. I have a
photo on-line if you're interested, at
http://themagicm.com/kent/some-junk.jpg.
For my next boat, I'm thinking of designing my own hull. I have an
engineering background, so this is not as crazy as it sounds ... and
I'm smart enough to know my own limitations. So I'd like to find a
professional who would work with me as a consultant, to give advice
and review my work.
I'm envisioning a sort of "AS32:" a boxy, plywood sharpie with
shallow draft, leeboards, and a rig similar to my current boat. I've
already exchanged email with some architects, and it seems to be hard
to find someone who won't object to some of the above
criteria. Naval architects do seem to be an opinionated bunch, don't they?
So I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone know of a professional who's
Bolger-friendly, and who'd be interested in working on a project like this?
Thanks & Fair Winds to everybody -- Kent
Kent Multer |\ /|
Magic Metal Productionshttp://TheMagicM.com/| \/ |
KOBUSHI world percussionhttp://kobushi.com/| |
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Kent <kent@...> wrote:
the PB&F drawing boards, not far from the wish list you describe.
Perhaps AS34 might be finished someday by Susanne Altenberger?
>There is a very solid rumor that there is an unfinished AS34 design on
> I'm envisioning a sort of "AS32:" a boxy, plywood sharpie with
the PB&F drawing boards, not far from the wish list you describe.
Perhaps AS34 might be finished someday by Susanne Altenberger?
Philip Bolger made the point that boat design wasn't all that hard. Doing it yourself was quite alright with him.
Though, he was talking about something somewhat smaller than you are planning!
For consultation, Ross Lillistone is a knowledgeable, confirmed Bolgerado. Perhaps he can help.
Mark
On Oct 14, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Kent wrote:
So I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone know of a professional who's
Bolger-friendly, and who'd be interested in working on a project like this?
Thanks & Fair Winds to everybody -- Kent
Kent Multer |\ /|
Magic Metal Productionshttp://TheMagicM.com/| \/ |
KOBUSHI world percussionhttp://kobushi.com/| |
Kent,
Try Jim Michalak, he's a retired aerospace engineer, you guys might hit it off. Check out his work onwww.jimsboats.com. He puts out an essay on the 1st and 15th. Tomorrows essay is out tonight and its a rerun of sail area math, an oldie but goodie. He also has all his back issues there. You can converse with him via e-mail atjim@....
Fair winds,
John Boy
."It's the tides. They work for you or against you."--Captain RonFrom:Kent <kent@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thu, October 14, 2010 10:30:03 PM
Subject:[bolger] Bolger-friendly architects?
Hi folks --
I'm a newby here, been lurking for a while. I'm a Bolger fan, and a
fan of unconventional boats in general. I currently sail a
production hull, a Beachcomber 25, which had no rig at all when I
bought her; the mast sails, and rigging are my own design. I have a
photo on-line if you're interested, at
http://themagicm.com/kent/some-junk.jpg.
For my next boat, I'm thinking of designing my own hull. I have an
engineering background, so this is not as crazy as it sounds ... and
I'm smart enough to know my own limitations. So I'd like to find a
professional who would work with me as a consultant, to give advice
and review my work.
I'm envisioning a sort of "AS32:" a boxy, plywood sharpie with
shallow draft, leeboards, and a rig similar to my current boat. I've
already exchanged email with some
architects, and it seems to be hard
to find someone who won't object to some of the above
criteria. Naval architects do seem to be an opinionated bunch, don't they?
So I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone know of a professional who's
Bolger-friendly, and who'd be interested in working on a project like this?
Thanks & Fair Winds to everybody -- Kent
Kent Multer |\ /|
Magic Metal Productionshttp://TheMagicM.com/| \/ |
KOBUSHI world percussionhttp://kobushi.com/| |
Kent,
Two you might contact are Michael Storer and Jim Michalak.
Cheers,
David G
***********
Two you might contact are Michael Storer and Jim Michalak.
Cheers,
David G
***********
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kent <kent@...> wrote:
>
> Hi folks --
>
> I'm a newby here, been lurking for a while. I'm a Bolger fan, and a
> fan of unconventional boats in general. I currently sail a
> production hull, a Beachcomber 25, which had no rig at all when I
> bought her; the mast sails, and rigging are my own design. I have a
> photo on-line if you're interested, at
>http://themagicm.com/kent/some-junk.jpg.
>
> For my next boat, I'm thinking of designing my own hull. I have an
> engineering background, so this is not as crazy as it sounds ... and
> I'm smart enough to know my own limitations. So I'd like to find a
> professional who would work with me as a consultant, to give advice
> and review my work.
>
> I'm envisioning a sort of "AS32:" a boxy, plywood sharpie with
> shallow draft, leeboards, and a rig similar to my current boat. I've
> already exchanged email with some architects, and it seems to be hard
> to find someone who won't object to some of the above
> criteria. Naval architects do seem to be an opinionated bunch, don't they?
>
> So I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone know of a professional who's
> Bolger-friendly, and who'd be interested in working on a project like this?
>
> Thanks & Fair Winds to everybody -- Kent
>
>
> Kent Multer |\ /|
> Magic Metal Productionshttp://TheMagicM.com/| \/ |
> KOBUSHI world percussionhttp://kobushi.com/| |
>
Hi folks --
I'm a newby here, been lurking for a while. I'm a Bolger fan, and a
fan of unconventional boats in general. I currently sail a
production hull, a Beachcomber 25, which had no rig at all when I
bought her; the mast sails, and rigging are my own design. I have a
photo on-line if you're interested, at
http://themagicm.com/kent/some-junk.jpg.
For my next boat, I'm thinking of designing my own hull. I have an
engineering background, so this is not as crazy as it sounds ... and
I'm smart enough to know my own limitations. So I'd like to find a
professional who would work with me as a consultant, to give advice
and review my work.
I'm envisioning a sort of "AS32:" a boxy, plywood sharpie with
shallow draft, leeboards, and a rig similar to my current boat. I've
already exchanged email with some architects, and it seems to be hard
to find someone who won't object to some of the above
criteria. Naval architects do seem to be an opinionated bunch, don't they?
So I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone know of a professional who's
Bolger-friendly, and who'd be interested in working on a project like this?
Thanks & Fair Winds to everybody -- Kent
Kent Multer |\ /|
Magic Metal Productionshttp://TheMagicM.com/| \/ |
KOBUSHI world percussionhttp://kobushi.com/| |
I'm a newby here, been lurking for a while. I'm a Bolger fan, and a
fan of unconventional boats in general. I currently sail a
production hull, a Beachcomber 25, which had no rig at all when I
bought her; the mast sails, and rigging are my own design. I have a
photo on-line if you're interested, at
http://themagicm.com/kent/some-junk.jpg.
For my next boat, I'm thinking of designing my own hull. I have an
engineering background, so this is not as crazy as it sounds ... and
I'm smart enough to know my own limitations. So I'd like to find a
professional who would work with me as a consultant, to give advice
and review my work.
I'm envisioning a sort of "AS32:" a boxy, plywood sharpie with
shallow draft, leeboards, and a rig similar to my current boat. I've
already exchanged email with some architects, and it seems to be hard
to find someone who won't object to some of the above
criteria. Naval architects do seem to be an opinionated bunch, don't they?
So I thought I'd ask here. Does anyone know of a professional who's
Bolger-friendly, and who'd be interested in working on a project like this?
Thanks & Fair Winds to everybody -- Kent
Kent Multer |\ /|
Magic Metal Productionshttp://TheMagicM.com/| \/ |
KOBUSHI world percussionhttp://kobushi.com/| |
Excuse me, I seem to be having some email problems. -- Kent
Kent Multer |\ /|
Magic Metal Productionshttp://TheMagicM.com/| \/ |
KOBUSHI world percussionhttp://kobushi.com/| |
Kent Multer |\ /|
Magic Metal Productionshttp://TheMagicM.com/| \/ |
KOBUSHI world percussionhttp://kobushi.com/| |
Mike:
I'm glad you saved the boat; it's very special. What rig does it have now? I've thought it would be a very good Everglades Challege boat!
Gary
I'm glad you saved the boat; it's very special. What rig does it have now? I've thought it would be a very good Everglades Challege boat!
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Murray" <mjm@...> wrote:
>
> Gary, I was scanning your story about visiting Phil and was about to delete it when I saw the words Montgomery and Spartina. I have Spartina. I acquired her 3 yrs ago from one of my construction sites. The the lady that owned her since 1995 had let her go to the point that she was ready for the dump. The bottom was completely gone along with several other holes in her hull. Needing a lot of help I took on a 2 yr restoration of Spartina. I had contacted David Montgomery about her and bought Phil's book Boats with an Open Mind. I contacted Phil in Sept of 2008 about plans and he sent me a fax saying that they had the plans and that he had sailed her. I am going up to Georgetown S.C. this weekend to display her in the 21st Annual wooden Boat show. I have only sailed her once since finishing the restoration but taking her out on Charleston harbor in a stiff 15 to 20 kt SW wind last month was a blast. We sailed from my Yacht club on James Island out to Fort Sumter and back. Those 2 hrs made the last two yrs of work melt away. I will be posting pix after the show. I will add your story to the Spartina archives. Thanks, Mike
>
>
>
> Mike Murray
> American Dock & Marine Construction, Inc.
> (843) 795-2999
> www.americandock.net
>
Pippo:
Without question, the original version is faster and definitely better looking! Kind of Ironic that right after it was modified with the longer cabin, I heard about the Jester Challenge. Might have been tempted to enter if the boat were still in the original form. for it's capabilities, it's an incredibly quick boat to build; mine took 400 to 500 hours but with a workboat, not yacht, finish. The original cabin had less than 5 feet of headroom; I think it was about 4'8". Plenty of room to sit comfortably. Now it has about 5'8".
What rig would you use? Lot of work tacking as a dipping lugger (partly because I had the sails made extra heavy). I like the balanced lugger. At one point, Bolger drew up a Chinese lug for me, but I decided to stay with the balance lug.
Gary
Without question, the original version is faster and definitely better looking! Kind of Ironic that right after it was modified with the longer cabin, I heard about the Jester Challenge. Might have been tempted to enter if the boat were still in the original form. for it's capabilities, it's an incredibly quick boat to build; mine took 400 to 500 hours but with a workboat, not yacht, finish. The original cabin had less than 5 feet of headroom; I think it was about 4'8". Plenty of room to sit comfortably. Now it has about 5'8".
What rig would you use? Lot of work tacking as a dipping lugger (partly because I had the sails made extra heavy). I like the balanced lugger. At one point, Bolger drew up a Chinese lug for me, but I decided to stay with the balance lug.
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Pippo" <pippobianco@...> wrote:
>
> Bruce: thanks a lot, I really appreciate it.
>
> Gary: that boat is magic to my eyes. Honestly, I definitely prefer the original version. I understand that the modified one is more comfortable, but since I'm racing Formula 18 catamarans, I'm sure that I would find the original cabin palacial anyway!
>
> The idea is bouncing in my mind since many months... Even if I dream of entering some day the Jester Challenge, I don' know if this could ever happen. However, entering short bluewater regattas in the Med seems much more feasible, and this looks like THE ideal boat if one wants to build his own vessel with limited resources.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@> wrote:
> >
> >http://hallman.org/bolger/459.gif
> >
> > shows the Gary Blankenship OSTAR boat.
>
Gary, I was scanning your story about visiting Phil
and was about to delete it when I saw the words Montgomery
and Spartina. I have Spartina. I acquired her 3 yrs ago from one
of my construction sites. The the lady that owned her since 1995 had let
her go to the point that she was ready for the dump. The bottom was completely
gone along with several other holes in her hull. Needing a lot of help I took on
a 2 yr restoration of Spartina. I had contacted David Montgomery about her
and bought Phil's book Boats with an Open Mind. I contacted Phil in Sept of
2008 about plans and he sent me a fax saying that they had the plans and
that he had sailed her. I am going up to Georgetown S.C. this weekend to display
her in the 21st Annual wooden Boat show. I have only sailed her once since
finishing the restoration but taking her out on Charleston harbor in a
stiff 15 to 20 kt SW wind last month was a blast. We sailed from my Yacht
club on James Island out to Fort Sumter and back. Those 2 hrs made the
last two yrs of work melt away. I will be posting pix after the show. I
will add your story to the Spartina archives. Thanks,
Mike
Bruce: thanks a lot, I really appreciate it.
Gary: that boat is magic to my eyes. Honestly, I definitely prefer the original version. I understand that the modified one is more comfortable, but since I'm racing Formula 18 catamarans, I'm sure that I would find the original cabin palacial anyway!
The idea is bouncing in my mind since many months... Even if I dream of entering some day the Jester Challenge, I don' know if this could ever happen. However, entering short bluewater regattas in the Med seems much more feasible, and this looks like THE ideal boat if one wants to build his own vessel with limited resources.
Gary: that boat is magic to my eyes. Honestly, I definitely prefer the original version. I understand that the modified one is more comfortable, but since I'm racing Formula 18 catamarans, I'm sure that I would find the original cabin palacial anyway!
The idea is bouncing in my mind since many months... Even if I dream of entering some day the Jester Challenge, I don' know if this could ever happen. However, entering short bluewater regattas in the Med seems much more feasible, and this looks like THE ideal boat if one wants to build his own vessel with limited resources.
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
>http://hallman.org/bolger/459.gif
>
> shows the Gary Blankenship OSTAR boat.
Yes, I still have it and had it out a couple weeks ago, although it's been hard lately finding time to sail it.
It's still for sale, sorta. My wife would like to stop paying the dockage bills, but I'm still reluctant. (Pippo, she'll make you a great deal on it . . .) Although realistically I don't have the time to devote to the maintenance that it deserves; it's long overdue for a haulout and bottom painting.
Nels remembers right, it now has a longer and higher cabin with big hatches. Not quite a birdwatcher slot, but close with big hatches for the hot Gulf summers. It still has the wing keel (Suzanne's design, I think), which was sort of the prototype for the I-60 keel. The wings originally pivoted as the keel retracted (the original keel was fixed and 7 feet deep), but the wings are fixed now. They cause great drag when the keel is raised, but it's not a big deal because that's only done for short periods to get over a shoal. She points higher with the wings, but is slower because of the increased drag.
If I keep the boat, I will probably redo the keel again, keeping the current draft (4'9") but eliminating the wings, which will allow the keel to nearly completely retract and the minimum draft to be 2 feet or so. But it would require several hundred more pounds of ballast because the keel's center of gravity would be higher without the wings. I'm toying with a plywood sided keel, with steel bars running the length for reinforcement, and the entire interior filled with lead, steel & epoxy. Something will have to be done before too long because the current steel keel (which wasn't built all that well) is deteriorating.
Pippo, if there's any questions I can answer about the design, please let me know.
Gary
It's still for sale, sorta. My wife would like to stop paying the dockage bills, but I'm still reluctant. (Pippo, she'll make you a great deal on it . . .) Although realistically I don't have the time to devote to the maintenance that it deserves; it's long overdue for a haulout and bottom painting.
Nels remembers right, it now has a longer and higher cabin with big hatches. Not quite a birdwatcher slot, but close with big hatches for the hot Gulf summers. It still has the wing keel (Suzanne's design, I think), which was sort of the prototype for the I-60 keel. The wings originally pivoted as the keel retracted (the original keel was fixed and 7 feet deep), but the wings are fixed now. They cause great drag when the keel is raised, but it's not a big deal because that's only done for short periods to get over a shoal. She points higher with the wings, but is slower because of the increased drag.
If I keep the boat, I will probably redo the keel again, keeping the current draft (4'9") but eliminating the wings, which will allow the keel to nearly completely retract and the minimum draft to be 2 feet or so. But it would require several hundred more pounds of ballast because the keel's center of gravity would be higher without the wings. I'm toying with a plywood sided keel, with steel bars running the length for reinforcement, and the entire interior filled with lead, steel & epoxy. Something will have to be done before too long because the current steel keel (which wasn't built all that well) is deteriorating.
Pippo, if there's any questions I can answer about the design, please let me know.
Gary
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> It was later heavily modified, including a "swing-wing" keel. Quite long
> but interesting article was written in DW mag about their acquaintance
> with Mr. Bolger.
>
>http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/columns/guest/blankenship/index.htm
>
> He might still have the boat - not sure though.
>
> Nels
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@> wrote:
> >
> >http://hallman.org/bolger/459.gif
> >
> > shows the Gary Blankenship OSTAR boat.
> >
> > The last I recall, that boat was for sale. Anybody know the current
> > status of her?
> >
>
It was later heavily modified, including a "swing-wing" keel. Quite long
but interesting article was written in DW mag about their acquaintance
with Mr. Bolger.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/columns/guest/blankenship/index.htm
He might still have the boat - not sure though.
Nels
but interesting article was written in DW mag about their acquaintance
with Mr. Bolger.
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/columns/guest/blankenship/index.htm
He might still have the boat - not sure though.
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
>http://hallman.org/bolger/459.gif
>
> shows the Gary Blankenship OSTAR boat.
>
> The last I recall, that boat was for sale. Anybody know the current
> status of her?
>
http://hallman.org/bolger/459.gif
shows the Gary Blankenship OSTAR boat.
The last I recall, that boat was for sale. Anybody know the current
status of her?
shows the Gary Blankenship OSTAR boat.
The last I recall, that boat was for sale. Anybody know the current
status of her?
Thanks Nels, but this is not it. #459 was drawn for Gary Blankenship, who actually did build it. It's basically a 2x enlargement of Gypsy, with a cabin, a deep ballasted fin, and a standing lug rig (one sail per side).
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> There is a page about it in this folder:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger_study_plans_only/files/OSTAR%2030/
>
> Nels
There is a page about it in this folder:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger_study_plans_only/files/OSTAR%2030/
Nels
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger_study_plans_only/files/OSTAR%2030/
Nels
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Pippo" <pippobianco@...> wrote:
>
> Hiya all. I'm looking for the followig article from MAIB:
>
> #459 OSTAR Racer 29'10"x7'10" 10 1 28
>
> but ordering it directly from MAIB would take too long since there's
no easy way to pay for the photocopies... Anyone out there who's willing
to scan it for me? Thanks in advance from Italy!
>
Hiya all. I'm looking for the followig article from MAIB:
#459 OSTAR Racer 29'10"x7'10" 10 1 28
but ordering it directly from MAIB would take too long since there's no easy way to pay for the photocopies... Anyone out there who's willing to scan it for me? Thanks in advance from Italy!
#459 OSTAR Racer 29'10"x7'10" 10 1 28
but ordering it directly from MAIB would take too long since there's no easy way to pay for the photocopies... Anyone out there who's willing to scan it for me? Thanks in advance from Italy!