Re: Eeek progress

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Trimaran? Skinnied up to 10:1 or so, how's a now slimmed down Eeek go for a multi's hull - say, for a cat? Per forma no ballast of course, and most weight and the rig carried well aft on that draft there, and nicely light from midships forward as it should. Much finer bows - still too wet?? Shoal draft too, maybe chine sailed in inches at speed. Rooster tails?? Would the wide shoal rudders not ease the release aft?

> most weight and the rig carried well aft on that draft there,

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:
> >
> > ...and whistle?
>
> I'm starting another trimaran... Not likely to get Fat Eeek done any time soon. The boat was done but all that remains is everything else, which includes sewing a sail, and making spar and boards. Painting...
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@> wrote:
> > >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "I'm guessing the Teal outsails the Eeek! more or less directly in proportion to
> > >> their waterline beams cubed. What do you suppose a 3ft beam Eeek! might sail
> > >> like?"
> > >
> > > I did build one to the same proportions as Anhinga (I think that makes it 30 inches), some long time ago. But with kids and about 15 other boats I never launched her. Every year I think of it...
> > >
> >
>

>
> ...and whistle?

>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@> wrote:
> >
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@> wrote:
> >
> >> "I'm guessing the Teal outsails the Eeek! more or less directly in proportion to
> >> their waterline beams cubed. What do you suppose a 3ft beam Eeek! might sail
> >> like?"
> >
> > I did build one to the same proportions as Anhinga (I think that makes it 30 inches), some long time ago. But with kids and about 15 other boats I never launched her. Every year I think of it...
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@...> wrote:
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
>> "I'm guessing the Teal outsails the Eeek! more or less directly in proportion to
>> their waterline beams cubed. What do you suppose a 3ft beam Eeek! might sail
>> like?"
>
> I did build one to the same proportions as Anhinga (I think that makes it 30 inches), some long time ago. But with kids and about 15 other boats I never launched her. Every year I think of it...
>

>
> Are you talking about $400?

> Speaking of which, you appear to be going ahead with it. Hope you'll
> keep us up to date with a building album and regular reports.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...> wrote:
>
>
> The text quoted from BWAOM below is from the chapter concerning Whalewatcher. I'm not sure why it is included in this conversation.
>
> Don
>
>
> "> ECONOMY SEAGOING CRUISER
> >
> > Why is ESC more closely proportioned to Eeek than to the Anhinga?

>
> Why is ESC more closely proportioned to Eeek than to the Anhinga?
>
> Answer:
>
> "I suggested pulling out the length to 29 feet and the breadth to 6 feet 6 inches. The length leaves the whole rig, including a compact 4 x 4 tow car, within the legal limit of most if not all states, and the breadth will just go between the wheels of a trailer, to ride low to the road and float on and off at a shallow angle.
>
> It's possible to design a trailer from which this boat can be launched without wetting the wheel bearings. (Trailer design is out of my line, but I've seen it done.) The trailer can be quite short, with highway lights and plate clamped on the stern of the boat rather than on a long tail on the trailer. The boats construction amounts to a giant box girder and does not need any support from the trailer." (BED AND BREAKFAST, SAIL, BWAOM, p242)
> "

>those should be sealed off when underway. Interesting that Bolger views the design as self-righting. Makes it a more attractive build.

On Mar 31, 2011, at 6:01 PM,gc4248@...wrote:
> Mark-
>
> One thing you might notice with Hulls is that a model made with no
> bottom will show about twice the righting moment of a model made
> with a bottom, i.e. an Anhinga model with bottom will have a
> righting moment of ~720 @ 15 deg. This means little in actual
> comparison with the real boat but it makes comparing different
> designs and design changes easier.
>
> I've also noticed that waterline height given is from Y = 0 and not
> from the bottom of the hull, and that a hull whose lowest point is
> above Y = 0 will have a lower righting moment than the same hull
> whose lowest point is at Y = 0. If you have a model that is "up in
> the air", a quick way to set the lowest point to zero is to enter a
> pitch angle of 0.1, then enter a pitch angle of 0.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> ANHINGA
>
> "Sandy Bottoms" was built in 1989. This prototype and only ANHINGA builder "elaborated on it a bit". One thing is: he placed large sliding drawers in the crucial above-ballast volumes of the cockpit benches-cum-ventilation-passages! Perversely he appears to have made a lubberly 'fetish' (as Bolger would say) of having all hatchways open with sail all standing! How would the panicked lubberly 555lbs crew behave when knocked down in any case? Hang from the high side cockpit gunnel? Or just as bad, stand on the low side cockpit gunnel and apply their significant moment the wrong way? There is certainly sufficent flotation aft to float two 185lbs crew, and it's on the good side of the beam ends ballast, but depending on how far the wrong side of the beam ends COB any extra crew mass is deployed, and how far heavy cabin contents similarly shift, there is some danger of inverting the boat. Were that likely, I'm fairly sure if crew jumped free the boat would right with merely seat high water remaining in the cockpit! (An ESC, of course, is fully decked. For deep blue water those twin ballast keels could be fitted. Yes, their weight would shift the COG which would tend to sink the bow, but upright this is countered to some degree by the pendulum effect exerted by the external ballast. cruzer)
>
>
> In WB 'Launchings' report there's this detail (obvious too in MAIB report photos):
>
>
> SANDY BOTTOMS
> Dave Bredemier of Rehoboth, Massachusetts, followed Phil Bolger's plans for the water ballasted Anhinga Sharpie, but the young builder added a mizzen, a tabernacle for the mainmaist, boom gallows, and step fins under the oar ports. - WoodenBoat #89, July/August, 1989
>
>
> Hmmm... Nothing there about the drawers that are proudly pointed out in the MAIB piece...
>
>
> The boat, a few outings after launch, one day turned turtle, and stayed like that fully flooded. This quite upset the previously delighted builder, Dave, who then promptly sold the boat.
>
>
> Four years later, 1994, Bolger writes "A couple of years ago one of my water ballasted designs met with an accident that completely flooded her. The wood structure had positive bouyancy, so she didn't sink, but she floated bottom-up, with the outside of the ballast tanks awash. Some foam high up in the hull would have righted her (mostly flooded, but self-rescueable as cockpit will come up partly drained. cruzer) and saved some inconvenience, even danger in cold water." (BED AND BREAKFAST, SAIL, BWAOM, p244) Here Bolger is being typically candid, yet generously patient to a fault - he must have known of the "elaborations".
>
> Thirteen more years on, in 2007, Sandy Bottoms was advertised for sale on the yahoo bolger4sale group:
>
>
> "#495 From: "helio10664" <helio10664@>
> Date: Tue May 29, 2007 11:10 am
> Subject: my 23 foot bolger sharpie or sale due to illness.
> I HAVE A 23 FOOT BOLGER SHARPIE,IT WAS BUILT,IN 89.
> IT WAS USED BY, HIM TWO TIME THEM SHE CAME TWO ME IN 02.
> SHE WAS TOTALY,REDONE IN 03 BUT DUE TO ILLNESS IT NEVER WENT IN THE
> WATER . I CANOT KEEP HER ENYMORE, IT BRAKES MY HEART TO SEE HER,
> GOING TO WAISTJUST SITTING THERE."
>
> "#498 From: "helio10664" <helio10664@>
> Date: Wed May 30, 2007 11:44 am
> Subject: to bruce and all
> the boat is a sailing canoe, thats the way bolger put it . the name on the plans i think is annahinga, i have the plans, but there in the garage and i have to find them iam in seekonk mass. maybe i might look for a micro, its smaller . if there is someone that is willing to trade she onle has to be painted and some dry rot agian not a lot just over the stern witch i fix once. aside from that there is nothing else that needs to be done."
>
> I don't think Sandy Bottoms sold, at least not from that ad placement. That may have been that, yet ANHINGA always leads on:
>
>
> ECONOMY SEAGOING CRUISER
>
> Why is ESC more closely proportioned to Eeek than to the Anhinga?
>
> Answer:
>
> "I suggested pulling out the length to 29 feet and the breadth to 6 feet 6 inches. The length leaves the whole rig, including a compact 4 x 4 tow car, within the legal limit of most if not all states, and the breadth will just go between the wheels of a trailer, to ride low to the road and float on and off at a shallow angle.
>
> It's possible to design a trailer from which this boat can be launched without wetting the wheel bearings. (Trailer design is out of my line, but I've seen it done.) The trailer can be quite short, with highway lights and plate clamped on the stern of the boat rather than on a long tail on the trailer. The boats construction amounts to a giant box girder and does not need any support from the trailer." (BED AND BREAKFAST, SAIL, BWAOM, p242)
>
> ESC, 34.5 feet by 6.5 feet is not an ocean crosser; she is however "sea going", probably also intended for some "road going".
>
> One of wider Anhinga-ish proportions for her length, and longer at that, would be better for offshore passage making. Simple, and not much more expensive.
>
> Where may this lead?
>
> Answer:
>
> "The Advanced Sharpies... They're complicated and expensive. I have the glimmerings of some ideas for improvements." (REAL CRUISERS, BWAOM, p372)
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> ESC = Eeek! x ~3, scaling constants = displacement*27, stability*8
>
> Eeek! 75lb ballast + 145lbs crew + 60lbs hull = 280displacement
> ESC 2240 ballast + 3700 crew&stores + 2360 hull* = 8300 displacement
>
> *2360lbs = ~47 x 0.5" plywood sheets
>
> 280lbs (Eeek disp) x 27 = 7560lbs,
> [8300 (ESC disp) - 7560 = 740 = 9% discrepancy]
>
> 24sqft (Eeek SA) x 8 = 192sqft, [210 (ESC SA) - 192 = 18 = 8.5% discrepancy]
>
> ------------------ ------------------ ----------------
>
> 75lbs/280lbs = 0.27, 8300 x 0.27 = 2241lbs = ~1LT
>
> 220lbs (Eeek! crew & ballast) x 27 = 5940lbs (ESC crew & stores)
>
> 3700lbs - 300lbs (2 crew) - 2240lbs (extra ballast) = 1160lbs (146% sufficient for gear, stores, water for 2 for 2months?)
>
> ----------------
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:
>
> > got to run the ruler and calculator over Anhinga once again.
> > Reviewed the available material from the only previous builder.
> > Reviewed that timeline and BWAOM comment.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> Cruz,
>
> Cruz,
> Okay, here's the model 2400 pound boat. Draft 4" deeper, just flying
> the chine.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> 'Fraid so far I haven't had good luck seeing graphically an effect
> from setting weights in BoatCalc. Hullforms is what Jim Michalak
> uses to work out that kind of stuff in detail. Wish I had your
> answer. It's an intriguing question worth pursuing.
>
> For now, taking Anhinga's weight spread out overall points in the
> right direction. Whatever weights or appendages are added within
> common sense, stability can only improve. Watch the real life trim
> as gear and folks are added.
>
> Unless I'm reading it wrong, this chart, lifted from Jim
> Michalak's essay on sail and hiking forces, suggests that with
> Anhinga's 1000 foot pounds righting moment at 15 degrees, even the
> basic boat's form has some room for error carrying the full 140 ft.
> sail, if not for an ocean voyage.
> Mark\
>
> On Mar 27, 2011, at 2:48 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
> > Will BoatCalc do an Anhinga with twin ballasted lee-daggerboards
> > like those of Centennial II? How does it look then with an
> > additional 220lbs ballast total centered say 2.5ft below the bottom
> > on a cross sectional plane through the middle of the designed
> > daggerboard - ie, about 1ft ahead of the main bulkhead.

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> A look at #484 with BoatCalc. All approximation. The tank should be
> deducted from the volume, but I'm not enough Hull Wiz to box that out.
> The CoB shifts forward as she heels, yes. The graphics show the stern
> trimmed well, though, to about 30 degrees, then lifting rapidly up
> from 35.
>
> There's a lot more good stuff to do within BoatCalc, both with the
> sail and in setting weights.
>
> Up to 30 degrees Anhinga has much ballast in the air, working. The
> cockpit look safe and more or less dry. Do they come with a box keel
> cutwater, please?
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/BoatCalc%
> 20Analysis/
>
>
>
>
>
> Anhinganauts
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Gentry" <alias1719@...> wrote:
>
> For those who are interested, I found another pic of my old Eeek! and posted it in the album here.
>

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
> IIRC, Dave, you used a purchased bag of sand for ballast. Bolger's account differs from the above in that with 40lbs of lead ballast he could re-board without using the mast-lashed-lifejacket outrigger method. Did you capsize yours? What happened to the ballast? With 75lbs of lead ballast aboard Bolger thought it safe enough to go along the coast in his cold home waters.>

I did not ever capsize mine, but, as a dinghy racer I have capsized literally hundreds of times in various boats, and I still can't think of a way I could have re-entered a capsizedEeek!without an outrigger and float!MaybeI could have rodeo'd it, like a kayak . . . certainly you'd need to bail it out, first .

My sandbag weighed about 60lbs IIRC. Lead would have lowered the COG a bit over the sand. I daresay Mr. Bolger felt it was safe enough, as did I . . . but only on a nice sailing day! That applies to most any sailing canoe, though, unless one is racing.

> It would've been great if PCB had given a hint in the drawing of his proposed ballast arrangement - the internals seem designed for crew to be comfortably seated below deck in usual chair high posture, but this seems to clash with the tank height necessary to carry sufficient under-floor water ballast.
>
When I spoke with her (and Mr Bolger), Ms Altenburger suggested aBirdwatcherstyle slot in the deck of the proposed ESC, which seems like a fine idea to me. We didn't discuss ballast arrangements.

> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "futabachan" <futabachan@> wrote:
> >
> I hadn't really marked the Anhinga before, but this whole thread
> has caught my attention, and I'm trying to force myself not to
> build one. I may knock an Eeeek! together to get it out of my
> system.
> >
> > -- Sue --
>
> I built an Eeek! and sailed her plenty. She sailed just fine, and
> as advertised. But, I can't particularly recommend them . . . .
>
> Sailing prone became cramped and old after a while, rather than
> interesting. It needed a rearview mirror, too! And sailing that
> way, in a narrow hull, very much limits your ability to shift your
> weight, so you become overpowered far too easily. Consequently,
> Eeek! was slow in winds under 12 kts, and practically unsailable if
> it blew harder.
> Also, sitting up was an adventure in all but the calmest waters,
> and re-entry after a capsize would have been impossible without
> lots of forethought and some extra gear.

> And, it is a bit too high sided for comfortable paddling, as it
> says in the book, IIRC.
>
> An Eeek! is cheap and easy to build, though, and easy to car top
> and carry down to the lake. You can take the ballast down
> separately.
>

> But, if I had two sheets of plywood and some lumber - and wanted an
> easy to build, car-toppable Bolger boat - I think that a Teal would
> be a much better investment of my time. It would assuredly sail
> rings around an Eeek!

>
> The proposed Economy Seagoing Cruiser still gets me excited, though.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Christopher C. Wetherill" <wetherillc@...> wrote:
>
> Do Carlson's Hulls program or Freeship calculate center of buoyancy for
> listing condition? If so, change of longitudinal position of C.o.B. can
> imply change of trim.
>
> V/R
> Chris
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "adventures_in_astrophotography" <jon@...> wrote:
>
> > Jon, a problem then may be: where to stow the sail and lengthy spar at sea? I guess you could lash it into chocks fitted to the Teal, but then that might be in the way when the tender is mostly rowed. Spars lashed in raised chocks off to one side, and the oars lashed low to the other for balance when towed?
>
>
> The long mast on Teal would be a stowage issue. If it were attached to the boat, I'd bet that sooner or later it would get damaged. That's probably one reason you see a lot of tenders with lugs or other rigs that have spars short enough to stow inside the boat.
>
> Jon
>

> If you are given to experimentation, a sprit boom may be adjusted with a
> 'snotter' to increase the draft of the sail or make it flatter. PCB has
> written that sprits tend to be too short and could generally be improved by
> adding 6" or so to the length. The only disadvantage to this is when you are
> rigged with a sprit main and a jib, in which case the forward end of the
> sprit can foul the jib during a tack or jibe.

> Jon, a problem then may be: where to stow the sail and lengthy spar at sea? I guess you could lash it into chocks fitted to the Teal, but then that might be in the way when the tender is mostly rowed. Spars lashed in raised chocks off to one side, and the oars lashed low to the other for balance when towed?

> The cost of a polytarp sail for the tender seems pretty small
> compared to these issues.

> The idea of a Teal tender that shares the mizzen sail of one's
> Centennial II raceboat* cruiser is an attractive one too.

>
> But, if I had two sheets of plywood and some lumber - and wanted
> an easy to build, car-toppable Bolger boat - I think that a Teal
> would be a much better investment of my time. It would assuredly
> sail rings around an Eeek!

> The proposed Economy Seagoing Cruiser still gets me excited, though.

>

>
> -- Sue --

> Do Carlson's Hulls program or Freeship calculate center of buoyancy for
> listing condition? If so, change of longitudinal position of C.o.B. can
> imply change of trim.

On 3/14/2011 10:49 PM, futabachan wrote:

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer"<c.ruzer@...>wrote:

There are photos about of Susan's H&HS "Shrike" that show level 
trim on similar water conditions, but reaching in a moderate breeze
with additional crew forward. I'll bet that level trim was 
maintained even beating in stronger winds provided that crew were
still forward.

I haven't noticed changes in fore-and-aft trim based on point of sail or wind pressure.  I don't have any photographs under sail singlehanded, though I took a few from on board during initial sea trials.  They don't shed any light on her trim.

As drawn, her waterline terminates a couple of inches above her stern foot, and a couple of feet aft of her forefoot, so she's drawn with a slight trim by the stern.

I didn't get her in the water last year; I have a ton to do to get her in commission for this year, but that's the plan.  I hadn't really marked the Anhinga before, but this whole thread has caught my attention, and I'm trying to force myself not to build one.  I may knock an Eeeek! together to get it out of my system.

 -- Sue --
(and no news on the I60 yet, not that I have anywhere to build one)

--
Susan Davis<futabachan@...>------------------------------------

Bolger rules!!!
- NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!!  Please!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts 
- Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
- Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
- Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com- Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/join(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:bolger-digest@yahoogroups.combolger-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> Have you considered buying an unloved fiberglass boat and trailer
> for cheap? Then take a saws-all to chop up the boat and dump it
> and keep the trailer?

> >I've mentioned the galley box - inside or out, both chests require
> >a means of fastening down.

> This is a camp cruiser. Think camping, where your camp stove is in
> a bag, and food in a cooler.
>

> > I'm thinking also of later having a lower yet more weatherly
> > spritsail rig.

> Redesigning the sail rig is about the most major possible revision
> an amateur builder can do to a sailboat design. Redesigning the
> rig involves all sorts of balance issues, (not that it can't be
> done), but my instinct when comparing a sail rig designed by an
> amateur builder versus one designed by a master sailboat designer
> who has decades of experience is to go with the rig designed by
> the master designer.

> Note that if SAD falls below 10, the log(SAD)-1 term becomes
> negative, and the equation will not solve in Excel.

> Proportions Compared, again in salt:
> ESC Boat Cmc Cp (=Cb) DLR SA/D S#
> Eeek! 1 0.642 113.399 8.968 2.330
> 30" fat Eeek 1 0.815 221.804 8.968 1.449
> Anhinga 1 0.602 119.925 12.481 3.001
> ESC 1 0.554 113.079 8.183 2.266

> > Is there a durable, economical, worry free, rot free method for
> > the wooden ballast tank construction?

> A boat this cheap and quick doesn't need to last for ever, nor
> should it. If you want an immortal boat, it would be wiser to
> build something more monumental. This is a quick cheap camp
> cruiser.

>
> There are photos about of Susan's H&HS "Shrike" that show level
> trim on similar water conditions, but reaching in a moderate breeze
> with additional crew forward. I'll bet that level trim was
> maintained even beating in stronger winds provided that crew were
> still forward.

>
>
>
> I am moved to build it. The biggest bugbear here is the necessary trailer!

>I've mentioned the galley box - inside or out, both chests require a means of fastening down.

> I'm thinking also of later having a lower yet more weatherly spritsail rig.

> Is there a durable, economical, worry free, rot free method for the wooden ballast tank construction?

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, BruceHallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:53 AM, c.ruzer <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
> >Thankfully it appears that no-one got hurt, other than some ill founded rumours denting the designer's reputation.
>
>
> It would be nice to see a Anhinga built exactly per plans and specs.
> That boat is intended to be economy and simple.
> It literally could be whipped out in one week. (Using a pneumatic
> nailer. Omitting all frills, including most of the fiberglass.)
>
> So often with PCB, the urge of the builders to "improve" and change
> the design affected his reputation.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> Guess the link does not work on Yahoo. So you go here:
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/
>
> Open the Anhinga file in the files section and click on the
> construction.gif file and click on it again and it enlarges.
>
> Getting to the head from the cockpit involves crawling on hands and
> knees forward and opening the forward hatch, popping up through it,
> turning around and sitting back down, with I presume head and
> shoulders out in the open. I think I might relocated it in the
> stern where that other chest is located, but then that would
> deviate from the plans before I even get started.
>
> Nels
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@> wrote:
> >
> > I could imagine a more practical alternative for making use of
> > the porta potti relative to where it is located as drawn:-)

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <arvent@...> wrote:
>
> I could imagine a more practical alternative for making use of the
porta
> potti relative to where it is located as drawn:-)
>
>
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/kAN5TUIFT0yLMTXTpis78Aa02ZczEfHWOtnN09GL1ZF\
\
>
c8IMJ4KzvZFXm6D5qtj9A4BD0JVvToc0jLvOLrW9NWFuz7t9lWQ/Anhinga/construction\
\
> .gif
>
> Nels
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, BruceHallman hallman@ wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:53 AM, c.ruzer c.ruzer@ wrote:
> > >Thankfully it appears that no-one got hurt, other than some ill
> founded rumours denting the designer's reputation.
> >
> >
> > It would be nice to see a Anhinga built exactly per plans and specs.
> > That boat is intended to be economy and simple.
> > It literally could be whipped out in one week. (Using a pneumatic
> > nailer. Omitting all frills, including most of the fiberglass.)
> >
> > So often with PCB, the urge of the builders to "improve" and change
> > the design affected his reputation.
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, BruceHallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 4:53 AM, c.ruzer c.ruzer@... wrote:
> >Thankfully it appears that no-one got hurt, other than some ill
founded rumours denting the designer's reputation.
>
>
> It would be nice to see a Anhinga built exactly per plans and specs.
> That boat is intended to be economy and simple.
> It literally could be whipped out in one week. (Using a pneumatic
> nailer. Omitting all frills, including most of the fiberglass.)
>
> So often with PCB, the urge of the builders to "improve" and change
> the design affected his reputation.
>

>Thankfully it appears that no-one got hurt, other than some ill founded rumours denting the designer's reputation.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I now believe that the narrow beam proportion is directly to do with ESC trailer hauling, that trailering and dry storage were a major criteria in the original concept.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why is ESC more closely proportioned to Eeek than to the Anhinga?
>
> Extra beam makes the 24' boat more roomy, stiffer by form, and with
> space for added ballast on pretty much the same weight of structure
> and occupants. A 2x Eeek! is still pretty narrow.
> ESC size overall might afford the trimmer, more symmetrical canoelike
> form.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, BruceHallman <hallman@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this revealing history of Anhinga. It is the first I have heard
> of the physical reason for the capsize. From a study of the plans it was
> obvious that the designed flotation chambers had been compromised, and
> installing drawers instead of flotation chambers explains the problem.
>
> Once again, deviating from the PCB design drawings comes with risks of
> unintended consequences.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:59 AM, c.ruzer<c.ruzer@...>wrote:

ANHINGA

"Sandy Bottoms" was built in 1989. This prototype and only ANHINGA builder "elaborated on it a bit". One thing is: he placed large sliding drawers in the crucial above-ballast volumes of the cockpit benches-cum-ventilation-passages! Perversely he appears to have made a lubberly 'fetish' (as Bolger would say) of having all hatchways open with sail all standing! How would the panicked lubberly 555lbs crew behave when knocked down in any case? Hang from the high side cockpit gunnel? Or just as bad, stand on the low side cockpit gunnel and apply their significant moment the wrong way? There is certainly sufficent flotation aft to float two 185lbs crew, and it's on the good side of the beam ends ballast, but depending on how far the wrong side of the beam ends COB any extra crew mass is deployed, and how far heavy cabin contents similarly shift, there is some danger of inverting the boat. Were that likely, I'm fairly sure if crew jumped free the boat would right with merely seat high water remaining in the cockpit! (An ESC, of course, is fully decked. For deep blue water those twin ballast keels could be fitted. Yes, their weight would shift the COG which would tend to sink the bow, but upright this is countered to some degree by the pendulum effect exerted by the external ballast. cruzer)

In WB 'Launchings' report there's this detail (obvious too in MAIB report photos):

SANDY BOTTOMS
Dave Bredemier of Rehoboth, Massachusetts, followed Phil Bolger's plans for the water ballasted Anhinga Sharpie, but the young builder added a mizzen, a tabernacle for the mainmaist, boom gallows, and step fins under the oar ports. - WoodenBoat #89, July/August, 1989

Hmmm... Nothing there about the drawers that are proudly pointed out in the MAIB piece...

The boat, a few outings after launch, one day turned turtle, and stayed like that fully flooded. This quite upset the previously delighted builder, Dave, who then promptly sold the boat.

Four years later, 1994, Bolger writes "A couple of years ago one of my water ballasted designs met with an accident that completely flooded her. The wood structure had positive bouyancy, so she didn't sink, but she floated bottom-up, with the outside of the ballast tanks awash. Some foam high up in the hull would have righted her (mostly flooded, but self-rescueable as cockpit will come up partly drained. cruzer) and saved some inconvenience, even danger in cold water." (BED AND BREAKFAST, SAIL, BWAOM, p244) Here Bolger is being typically candid, yet generously patient to a fault - he must have known of the "elaborations".

Thirteen more years on, in 2007, Sandy Bottoms was advertised for sale on the yahoo bolger4sale group:

"#495 From: "helio10664" <helio10664@...>
Date: Tue May 29, 2007 11:10 am
Subject: my 23 foot bolger sharpie or sale due to illness.
I HAVE A 23 FOOT BOLGER SHARPIE,IT WAS BUILT,IN 89.
IT WAS USED BY, HIM TWO TIME THEM SHE CAME TWO ME IN 02.
SHE WAS TOTALY,REDONE IN 03 BUT DUE TO ILLNESS IT NEVER WENT IN THE
WATER . I CANOT KEEP HER ENYMORE, IT BRAKES MY HEART TO SEE HER,
GOING TO WAISTJUST SITTING THERE."

"#498 From: "helio10664" <helio10664@...>
Date: Wed May 30, 2007 11:44 am
Subject: to bruce and all
the boat is a sailing canoe, thats the way bolger put it . the name on the plans i think is annahinga, i have the plans, but there in the garage and i have to find them iam in seekonk mass. maybe i might look for a micro, its smaller . if there is someone that is willing to trade she onle has to be painted and some dry rot agian not a lot just over the stern witch i fix once. aside from that there is nothing else that needs to be done."

I don't think Sandy Bottoms sold, at least not from that ad placement. That may have been that, yet ANHINGA always leads on:

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:

> got to run the ruler and calculator over Anhinga once again.
> Reviewed the available material from the only previous builder.
> Reviewed that timeline and BWAOM comment.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, gc4248@... wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com> ,
> "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:
> >
> > Which I believe now only leaves:
> >
> > 1) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-0.228 + 0.691 x (log(12.481)-1)^0.8]
> >
> > 2) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x (1 / 1.0962)^0.8]
> >
> > 3) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x (0.9122)^0.8 ]
> >
> > 4) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x 0.9291 ]
> >
> > 5) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-0.228 + 0.642]
> >
> > 6) S# = 3.972 x 10^[0.414]
> >
> > 7) S# = 3.972 x 2.5942
> >
> > 8) S# = 10.304 ... and likewise for the other boats.
> >
>
> I see where the error is:
>
> 1) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-0.228 + 0.691 x (log(12.481)-1)^0.8] given
>
> log(12.481) = 1.096 so
>
> 2) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x (1.096-1)^0.8]
>
> 3) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x (0.096)^0.8 ]
>
> (0.096)^0.8 = 0.153 so
>
> 4) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + (0.691 x 0.153) ]
>
> 5) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-0.228 + 0.106]
>
> 6) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-.122]
>
> 7) S# = 3.972 x .755
>
> 8) S# = 3 ... and likewise for the other boats.
>
>
> Note that if SAD falls below 10, the log(SAD)-1 term becomes negative,
> and the equation will not solve in Excel. It can be solved in MathCAD,
> however, so:
>
> Proportions Compared, again in salt:
> ESC Boat Cmc Cp (=Cb) DLR SA/D S#
> Eeek! 1 0.642 113.399 8.968 2.330
> 30" fat Eeek 1 0.815 221.804 8.968 1.449
> Anhinga 1 0.602 119.925 12.481 3.001
> ESC 1 0.554 113.079 8.183 2.266
>
> I'll do another post showing how to derive S # using Excel.
>
> I should note that my 36" wide sailing canoe has 54 sq. ft. of sail area
> and an S # in the mid fours. I don't consider it overcanvassed until
> whitecaps are starting to form. Eeek at 24 sq. ft. shouldn't be either
> despite the narrow beam.
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful comments on the ESC design
> type. A cruising boat should always perform well but having good sailing
> manners is part of that performance. I'm therefore thinking that having
> some rocker aft might be a better way to go. I've concluded that the
> flat bottom aft has no over-riding benefits if the boat is not operating
> at least in the semi-displacement range, although I have to admit that
> building a wide Eeek to try out the hull type would not require a great
> outlay of time or money.
>
> I've already considered rounded chines. With a 6" radius chine, the
> bottom of Anhinga could be covered with standard 4' wide ply.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:

> The photo of sharply heeled Canard (BWAOM, p114) shows a pointy double-ender with a comparatively slight and symetrical bottom rocker. COB remains just aft of amidships aligned beneath crew weight and both stem and stern remain level just above the water as in level trim. Hard over, LWL has hardly changed.
>
> The Eeek drawing (30-Odd, p4) shows the forward chine intersecting the waterline 1.15ft aft from the stem in level trim. The photo (30-Odd, p6) of the boat heeled only slightly shows it at least 2ft aft! This when that forward chine curves in twice as much as it rises! The chine aft which curves in as much as that forward has not lifted! The crew or ballast weight aft have not shifted lengthwise anywhere, and yet with heeling the waterline has shrunk from the bow, not lengthened forward, or remained static. The displacement lost aft has moved somewhere relative to that of the water line plane: deeper.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
> Which I believe now only leaves:
>
> 1) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-0.228 + 0.691 x (log(12.481)-1)^0.8]
>
> 2) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x (1 / 1.0962)^0.8]
>
> 3) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x (0.9122)^0.8  ]
>
> 4) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x 0.9291 ]
>
> 5) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-0.228 + 0.642]
>
> 6) S# = 3.972 x 10^[0.414]
>
> 7) S# = 3.972 x 2.5942
>
> 8) S# = 10.304  ... and likewise for the other boats.
>

I see where the error is:

1) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-0.228 + 0.691 x (log(12.481)-1)^0.8]       given

log(12.481) = 1.096    so

2) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x (1.096-1)^0.8]

3) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x (0.096)^0.8  ]

(0.096)^0.8 = 0.153     so

4) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + (0.691 x 0.153) ]

5) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-0.228 + 0.106]

6) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-.122]

7) S# = 3.972 x .755

8) S# = 3  ... and likewise for the other boats.

Note that if SAD falls below 10, the log(SAD)-1 term becomes negative, and the equation will not solve in Excel. It can be solved in MathCAD, however, so:

Proportions Compared, again in salt:
ESC Boat         Cmc Cp (=Cb)    DLR           SA/D         S#
Eeek!                1 0.642            113.399       8.968      2.330
30" fat Eeek   1 0.815            221.804       8.968     1.449
Anhinga         1 0.602             119.925      12.481    3.001
ESC                   1 0.554             113.079      8.183     2.266

I'll do another post showing how to derive S # using Excel.

I should note that my 36" wide sailing canoe has 54 sq. ft. of sail area and an S # in the mid fours. I don't consider it overcanvassed until whitecaps are starting to form. Eeek at 24 sq. ft. shouldn't be either despite the narrow beam.

Thanks for your thoughtful and insightful comments on the ESC design type. A cruising boat should always perform well but having good sailing manners is part of that performance. I'm therefore thinking that having some rocker aft might be a better way to go. I've concluded that the flat bottom aft has no over-riding benefits if the boat is not operating at least in the semi-displacement range, although I have to admit that building a wide Eeek to try out the hull type would not require a great outlay of time or money.

I've already considered rounded chines. With a 6" radius chine, the bottom of Anhinga could be covered with standard 4' wide ply.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> The picture of Eeek! sailing trial does not show much tendency to go
> stern down to me, keeping in mind how high the bow is cut in the
> first place.
>
> I've got a paddle boat modeled on the lower half of an Eeek! hull.
> Paddling hard, she does not seem to squat much. There's a lot of
> buoyancy back there. The boat is directionally very stable. too. The
> only fly is a strong tendency for rolling side to side with every
> stroke, however light.
>
> Mark

On Mar 2, 2011, at 6:59 PM, c.ruzer wrote:

>
>
> Don, look at the profile drawings of Eeek! in static level trim (30-
> Odd, p4), and then look at the photo of PCB sailing in fairly flat
> water on the wind (p6). Note the heel under sail, but look closely
> at the bow-up stern-down trim. Dominant crew weight not
> withstanding, on heeling she goes deeper by the stern. With a
> little more heel comes significant sinking by the stern depending
> on ballast and moveable aft weight such as crew and gear.

> I wonder if the Eeek concept is a good match for water ballast.
> It's one thing if the boat come first, as it apparently did with
> the prototype, but if the idea precedes the boat, it may push
> things in a different direction.

>
> Using water for ballast is one of the trickiest things to work out.
> There are lots of bogus ideas out there.
>
> Since water does not make very good ballast, you want to use as
> little of it as possible, i.e. the water-ballasted sailboat should
> look a lot like a unballasted sailboat.

> All the displacement should be near the surface. It should have
> firm bilges and a flat (or nearly flat) bottom.

> Don't count on water ballast for power to carry sail; use it only
> for ultimate stability, i.e. recovery from a knockdown.

> It seems to me that the Eeek shape gives up a lot of stability
> compared to a regular sharpie model.

> I like the water ballast though: it's cheap, doesn't
> sink, and just pump it out to get unstuck from reef...

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...> wrote:
>
>
> OK, the math of this is way beyond my interest level, but the questions raised do seem to get back to the original question Bolger brought up and which EEEK! was designed to answer.
>
> In "30 ODD BOATS" Bolger wrote; "I had the notion that a pointed stern without rocker would allow more ballast to be carried without increasing the size of the midsection. I wasn't sure what vices this shape might develop and decided that I'd like to try it first at a smaller scale."
>
> Although Bolger mentions 75lbs. of ballast later in the chapter, he doesn't state whether or not EEEK! answered his question. All the quirks EEEK! has that are mentioned seem to be related to it being scaled down. An oversize crew would have to decide to climb the mast of the 34' version all at once to duplicate the CG problems EEEK! demonstrated.
>
> Don
>
> .....One concern I have is the location of the water ballast tank.

> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, gc4248@... wrote:
>
> For Anhinga, SA/D at 12.5 is below the motorsailer category, DLR
> at 120 is in the very light ocean racing category, so intuitively
> we should be somewhere in between these categories overall,
> not off the chart in the racer direction.
>
> Let's look at the numbers;
> S# = 3.972 x 10^[-DLR/526 + 0.691 x (log(SAD)-1)^0.8], DLR/526
> = .228. I just put this formula into Mathcad and got:
> 3.972 x 10^[-.228 + 0.691 x (log(12.481)-1)^0.8] = 3.001,
> which confirms the results I got using the chart on page 26 of
> The Design Ratios. These ESC designs don't appear to break any
> design rules.
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, gc4248@... wrote:
>
> I should also add that this S# formula will run in Excel for
> Anhinga but not for the other 3 models. All four will run in
> MathCad but the other 3 have an imaginary term in the answer.


Agreed, we shouldn't be off the chart, but the thing is that I believe it's the wrong chart.

I wonder:

that it's an unlikely coincidence to get that S# of 3.001 (or 3.101?) for Anhinga, and no result for the other three boats done by either software app, Excel, or Mathcad. Is this due to a question of the treatment of the mathematical order of operations? How was the expression entered in, and run by Excel and Mathcad?http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/faq.order.operations.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

This time some longhand alternatives by Windows calculator, rounding each step to four decimals:

1) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-.228 + 0.691 x (log(12.481)-1)^0.8]

2) S# ‚ 3.972 x 10^[0.463 x (log(12.481)-1)^0.8] ~~ On review this step was incorrect. My mistake here.

3) S# ‚ 3.972 x 10^[0.463 x (1 / 1.0962)^0.8]

4) S# ‚ 3.972 x 10^[0.463 x (0.9122)^0.8]

5) S# ‚ 3.972 x 10^[0.463 x 0.9291]

6) S# ‚ 3.972 x 10^[0.4302]

7) S# ‚ 3.972 x 2.6928

8) S# ‚ 10.6958 (However, as it turns out this is closer than ‚ 3.0 Still, it's wrong.)


Reversing the order of operations for the SAD term goes nowhere:

1) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-.228 + 0.691 x (log(12.481)-1)^0.8]

2) S# = 3.972 x 10^[0.463 x (log(1/12.481)^0.8]

3) S# = 3.972 x 10^[0.463 x (log( 0.0801)^0.8]

4) S# = 3.972 x 10^[0.463 x (-1.0964)^0.8]

5) S# ‚ 3.972 x 10^[0.463 x "invalid input for function". ie, undefined] ! On this for now I'll believe in the maths competency of whomever put my microsoft calculator together, also there's "calculating b^n is possible whenever b is a positive number and n is a real number. For example, b^(-1) is defined to be the reciprocal of b, that is, 1/b"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm

Which I believe now only leaves:

1) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-0.228 + 0.691 x (log(12.481)-1)^0.8]

2) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x (1 / 1.0962)^0.8]

3) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x (0.9122)^0.8 ]

4) S# = 3.972 x 10^[- 0.228 + 0.691 x 0.9291 ]

5) S# = 3.972 x 10^[-0.228 + 0.642]

6) S# = 3.972 x 10^[0.414]

7) S# = 3.972 x 2.5942

8) S# = 10.304 ... and likewise for the other boats.


By substituting 'sa' and 'dlr' term values copied and pasted in this old fiddly windows calculator: 3.972*10y((0.691*(sal)y(-1)y(0.8))-dlr)=
or better: 3.972*10y((0.691*((sal)y(-1))y(0.8))-dlr)=

eg, substituting for Anhinga, 3.972*10y((0.691*(12.481l)y(-1)y(0.8))-0.228)= ;or 3.972*10y((0.691*((12.481l)y(-1))y(0.8))-0.228)=

For the ESC series:

EEEK! 3.972*10y((0.691*((8.9676l)y(-1))y(0.8))-(113.3989/526))=
S# 12.64
3.972*10y((0.691*((8.9676l)y(-1))y(0.8))-0.2156)=
S# 12.6396

fat EEEK! 3.972*10y((0.691*((8.9676l)y(-1))y(0.8))-(221.8042/526))=
S# 7.8642
3.972*10y((0.691*((8.9676l)y(-1))y(0.8))-0.422)=
S# 7.8584

ANHINGA 3.972*10y((0.691*((12.481l)y(-1))y(0.8))-(119.9247/526))=
S# 10.3047
3.972*10y((0.691*(12.481l)y(-1)y(0.8))-0.228)=
S# 10.3046

ESC 3.972*10y((0.691*((8.183l)y(-1))y(0.8))-(113.0785/526))=
S# 13.4054
3.972*10y((0.691*((8.183l)y(-1))y(0.8))-0.215)=
S# 13.4047

I think I still might prefer a pencil! More on these S# below.

> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, gc4248@... wrote:
> What all these numbers don't show, is how does it sail?
> Will the flat bottom aft allow it to plane on a reach or run
> when the wind pipes up? How does it go to windward? Would this
> make a good raid boat? A good trailer/ sailer/ cruiser?


You'd need over 150 horse power to plane ESC with an outboard motor (50lbs/hp). And that could be optimistic as these flat bottoms have a hefty waterplane loading (deep). At a windspeed of 25mph a sail of 210sqft developing 0.205hp/sqft will produce only 43hp (0.205*210). 10mph wind 2.5hp (0.013*210). Anhinga would need 50hp. At 25mph and 10mph the sail power would be respectively only 28hp (0.205*140), and 2hp (0.013*140). The heeling and trim will reduce sailpower further.

To windward? They're relatively narrow boats, so they don't stand up to the wind accordingly. The stern volume, and accordingly the level trim ballast COG location presents the issues of trimming down by the stern with heeling, perhaps very deeply so...

> One concern I have is the location of the water ballast tank.
> The Center of Buoyancy is located 174" back from the bow,
> but the water tank and the crew compartment are centered 199"
> from the bow. When it heels the CoB moves forward, making the
> discrepancy worse. I've thought of building to this design but I
> think I'd move the water ballast forward. I'd also raise the
> seats and make the cockpit self-draining, improve the floatation
> and water-tight integrity of the cabin for better self-rescuing,
> increase the scantlings some, and put some curvature in the deck. >>

Note the parenthetical comment PCB inserted when in SBJ #45 he wrote about Cartoon #21, 'A Cruising Canoe' (an outrigger!):

"The cartoon shows a hull about the same shape under water as an experimental canoe I had built, called Eeek, an account of which, including the reason for the name, you'll find in my book 30-Odd Boats (International Marine, 1982). She was meant primarily to sail, with 16-inch deep sides that made her awkward to paddle, and she needed 50 pounds or more of ballast. (The ballast is shown as lead in the book, but I later had a water ballast tank built into her. This saved carrrying the ballast around, but added weight of the tank to the stripped minimum.)"

I'd say for that Eeek water ballast tank the volume was spread out lengthwise proportionally much more than is shown for Anhinga. I believe this would have been so to keep the tank height low, not so much to keep the water ballast COG anywhere near as low as that of the lead, but rather to still keep the very dominant crew weight as low as possible. For this reason I wouldn't raise the height of cockpit seating in Anhinga. The ballast tank can be proportioned in differing ways, but for upright level trim its COG has always to remain aft of the centre of bouyancy (COB) in inverse proportion to its mass. The lever arm between the level trim COB and the further aft ballast COG may decrease as the ballast mass is increased. If the ballast COG is at the designed level trim COB or before it she will go bow down. If the ballast and/or its distance from the COB is insufficient she will go bow down.

A workable compromise for ESC, and perhaps Anhinga, resulting in less stern down trim when on the wind may be to break the ballast tank into smaller compartmentalised ballast tanks differentially filled for trim adjustment in combination with twin external ballasted keels as on Centenial II. The sides here are vertical and also have the height to raise such keels by help from a tackle slung from the sheer to the keels just above their bottom retaining guards. Instead of that variable water ballast, solid ballast could be moved lengthwise in some way. I like the water ballast though: it's cheap, doesn't sink, and just pump it out to get unstuck from reef, or to float off that sandbar away from crocs 300nm up the Fly or Sepik Rivers. Of course, more ballast could be carried for even less midsection size if the bottom was dead flat throughout like on the Dovekie, and going stern down when on the wind would be less of a problem as the ballast COG would be in line with level trim COB. I believe PCB said as little as 4-inches of rounding to the chine would prevent any chine turbulence that the designed forward chine is curved up (SOP) to likewise prevent. Gary Lepak did this to his Bufflehead 20-foot plywood double-ender by strip-planking a small radius chine.


> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, gc4248@... wrote:
> Using the other formula given on the chart on page 26 of the Design Ratios paper, S# = 48.735*(SAD/DLR)^3 - 65.425*(SAD/DLR)^2 + 35.784*(SAD/DLR) + 0.0307 gives the following results:
>
> Proportions Compared, again in salt:
> ESC Boat Cmc Cp (=Cb) DLR SA/D S#
> Eeek! 1 0.6417 113.3989 8.9676 2.475
> 30" fat Eeek 1 0.8148 221.8042 8.9676 1.374
> Anhinga 1 0.6024 119.9247 12.4809 3.101
> ESC 1 0.5542 113.0785 8.1830 2.296
>
> Interestingly, doubling the SA/D ratio for the fat Eeek only increases the S# to 2.526.


In discussion of S# related to Anhinga we've spiraled full circle, I'm afraid...


I believe the premise is that the equation, S# = 3.972 x 10^[-DLR/526 + 0.691 x (log(SAD)-1)^0.8] is for S# so adjusted as to fit the Brooks/Young/Sponberg monohull _yachts_ sample set, and not a fit for greatly disimilar samples.


The equation shown on the graph, fig 11, page 26, athttp://www.sponbergyachtdesign.com/THE%20DESIGN%20RATIOS.pdf


S# = 48.735(SADR/DLR)3 - 65.425(SADR/DLR)2 + 35.784(SADR/DLR) + 0.0307


is merely, as Sponberg states,


"The equation for the trend line shown at the top of the chart is another way
to approximate S# in a simpler cubic equation."


which is the equation for only that trend line curve Sponberg plotted for the Brooks/Young/Sponberg monohull _yachts_ sample set values of S# v. [SA/Vol2/3]/[D/(.01Lwl)3] In other words, again it's inapplicable to boats disimilar to the sampled yacht set. Using this equation will simply give an approximation for S# close to that gained by reading it directly from the graph for the sampled set.


If Sponberg's equation for his trend line curve is correct, then it's not surprising that the calculated value you have for Anhinga, now an S# of 3.101, is close to that which you obtained before from the graph by "Dividing SA/D by DLR for Anhinga gives a value of .11, which should equate to an S# of 3, the top end of the cruiser category". If the original equation for S# with the logarithmic term required adjustment to its constant values to encompass the ESC series boats, then so to would the cubic equation for a Sponberg trend line curve.



I thought, perhaps still do, that a calculated S# for the ESC boats although so obviously not accurate, would nonetheless be somewhat useful for comparisons between the boats. To arrive at an S# function encompassing the ESC boats with others I believe would require empirical tests of the ESc boats. They are unusually behaving boats, so an attempt at simply adjusting the Brooks-Young equation constant(s) to a formula that applies to them alone based on their known design numbers may also be invalid.


Anyway, there's the asymtotic issue, but isn't that acheived by just a linear arithmetic adjustment of the constants value within the formula? Perhaps the standard calculated Brooks-Young S# will do as loosely indicative from an ESC boat self-referencing perspective?

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, gc4248@... wrote:
>
> For Anhinga, SA/D at 12.5 is below the motorsailer category, DLR at 120 is in the very light ocean racing category, so intuitively we should be somewhere in between these categories overall, not off the chart in the racer direction.
>
> Let's look at the numbers; S# = 3.972 x 10^[-DLR/526 + 0.691 x (log(SAD)-1)^0.8], DLR/526 = .228. I just put this formula into Mathcad and got: 3.972 x 10^[-.228 + 0.691 x (log(12.481)-1)^0.8] = 3.001, which confirms the results I got using the chart on page 26 of The Design Ratios. These ESC designs don't appear to break any design rules.
>
> What all these numbers don't show, is how does it sail? Will the flat bottom aft allow it to plane on a reach or run when the wind pipes up? How does it go to windward? Would this make a good raid boat? A good trailer/ sailer/ cruiser?
>
> One concern I have is the location of the water ballast tank. The Center of Buoyancy is located 174" back from the bow, but the water tank and the crew compartment are centered 199" from the bow. When it heels the CoB moves forward, making the discrepancy worse. I've thought of building to this design but I think I'd move the water ballast forward. I'd also raise the seats and make the cockpit self-draining, improve the floatation and water-tight integrity of the cabin for better self-rescuing, increase the scantlings some, and put some curvature in the deck.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dimensions:
> > ESC Type Lwl(ft) Bwl(ft) Do(ft) Disp(lbs) SA(sqft)
> > EeeK! 10.33 2.00 0.33 280 24
> > 30" fat Eeek 8.26 2.50 0.26 280 24
> > Anhinga 20.75 5.00 0.60 2400 140
> > ESC 32.0 6.50 1.125 8300 210
> >
> > Proportions Compared, again in salt:
> > ESC Boat Cmc Cp (=Cb) DLR SA/D S#
> > Eeek! 1 0.6417 113.3989 8.9676 12.3943
> > 30" fat Eeek 1 0.8148 221.8042 8.9676 7.5679
> > Anhinga 1 0.6024 119.9247 12.4809 10.6954
> > ESC 1 0.5542 113.0785 8.1830 12.9129
> >
> > Cb = Actual Submerged Volume/(Lwl x Bwl x D). (Upright, these sailboats are like little ships!)
> > Cmc = Midship area/Bwl/Draft
> > Cp = Vol/(Lwl x Bwl x Draft x Cmc)
> > DLR = Displacement/(Lwl/100)^3
> > SA/D = Sail Area/(volume of displacement)^0.667
> > S# = 3.972 x 10^[-DLR/526 + 0.691 x (log(SAD)-1)^0.8]
> >
> > Speed/Length.........desirable Cp (Kinney)
> > 1.2............................0.58
> > 1.3............................0.62
> > 1.4............................0.64
> >
> > BOAT TYPE......................DLR (Brewer)
> > Very light ocean racing boat...100 - 150
> > Light ocean racing boat........150 - 200
> >
> > BOAT TYPE......................SA/D (Brewer)
> > Motorsailers...................13 - 14
> > Slow auxiliary sailboats.......14 - 15
> > Average offshore cruiser.......15 - 16
> > Coastal cruisers...............16 - 17
> > Racing yachts..................17 - 19
> >
> >
> > CATEGORY.......................S# (Brooks)(LOL! type inappropriate)
> > Lead Sled......................1 to 2
> > Cruiser........................2 to 3
> > Racer-Cruiser..................3 to 5
> > Racing Machine.................5 to 10
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dimensions:
> ESC Type Lwl(ft) Bwl(ft) Do(ft) Disp(lbs) SA(sqft)
> EeeK! 10.33 2.00 0.33 280 24
> 30" fat Eeek 8.26 2.50 0.26 280 24
> Anhinga 20.75 5.00 0.60 2400 140
> ESC 32.0 6.50 1.125 8300 210
>
> Proportions Compared, again in salt:
> ESC Boat Cmc Cp (=Cb) DLR SA/D S#
> Eeek! 1 0.6417 113.3989 8.9676 12.3943
> 30" fat Eeek 1 0.8148 221.8042 8.9676 7.5679
> Anhinga 1 0.6024 119.9247 12.4809 10.6954
> ESC 1 0.5542 113.0785 8.1830 12.9129
>
> Cb = Actual Submerged Volume/(Lwl x Bwl x D). (Upright, these sailboats are like little ships!)
> Cmc = Midship area/Bwl/Draft
> Cp = Vol/(Lwl x Bwl x Draft x Cmc)
> DLR = Displacement/(Lwl/100)^3
> SA/D = Sail Area/(volume of displacement)^0.667
> S# = 3.972 x 10^[-DLR/526 + 0.691 x (log(SAD)-1)^0.8]
>
> Speed/Length.........desirable Cp (Kinney)
> 1.2............................0.58
> 1.3............................0.62
> 1.4............................0.64
>
> BOAT TYPE......................DLR (Brewer)
> Very light ocean racing boat...100 - 150
> Light ocean racing boat........150 - 200
>
> BOAT TYPE......................SA/D (Brewer)
> Motorsailers...................13 - 14
> Slow auxiliary sailboats.......14 - 15
> Average offshore cruiser.......15 - 16
> Coastal cruisers...............16 - 17
> Racing yachts..................17 - 19
>
>
> CATEGORY.......................S# (Brooks)(LOL! type inappropriate)
> Lead Sled......................1 to 2
> Cruiser........................2 to 3
> Racer-Cruiser..................3 to 5
> Racing Machine.................5 to 10
>

> According to the Sponberg paper on design ratios, S# can't exceed
> 10, so there's an error in your calculation.

> Dividing SA/D by DLR for Anhinga gives a value of .11, which should
> equate to an S# of 3, the top end of the cruiser category. Not
> overcanvassed at all.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, gc4248@... wrote:
> > Proportions Compared (in salt):
> >
> > ESC Type Cp DLR SA/D S#
> > Eeek! 0.60 87.79 8.97 14.14
> > 30" fat Eeek 0.63 107.98 8.97 12.70
> > Anhinga 0.61 115.69 12.48 10.88
> > ESC 0.55 113.07 8.18 12.91
> >
> >
> > These numbers are clipped from Eric W. Sponberg, and should be checked (!)... but!!! just how OVER CANVASSED was that Sandy
> > Bottoms? Is Anhinga?
>
>
> According to the Sponberg paper on design ratios, S# can't exceed 10, so there's an error in your calculation. Dividing SA/D by DLR for Anhinga gives a value of .11, which should equate to an S# of 3, the top end of the cruiser category. Not overcanvassed at all.
>

> Proportions Compared (in salt):
>
> ESC Type Cp DLR SA/D S#
> Eeek! 0.60 87.79 8.97 14.14
> 30" fat Eeek 0.63 107.98 8.97 12.70
> Anhinga 0.61 115.69 12.48 10.88
> ESC 0.55 113.07 8.18 12.91
>
>
> These numbers are clipped from Eric W. Sponberg, and should be checked (!)... but!!! just how OVER CANVASSED was that Sandy Bottoms? Is Anhinga?

> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, luvmybeama@ wrote:
> Not exactly. The 34 1/2' Economy Cruiser has a length/ beam of
> 5.31:1, the 23' Anhinga #484 has 4.65:1, and the 11 1/2' Eeek #407
> has 5.75:1. An Eeek built to the same proportions as Anhinga would
> be 30" wide and have almost double the initial stability at the
> same displacement...

> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, daschultz8275@ wrote:
> So if one were to build the 34' Economy Cruiser, perhaps it should
> be built to Anhinga's proportions? Or perhaps a full scale cruiser
> would just get enough permanent ballast to take care of the issue,
> and could be built to original Eeek! proportions for a bit more
> speed.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, luvmybeama@... wrote:
> Not exactly. The 34 1/2' Economy Cruiser has a length/ beam of 5.31:1, the 23' Anhinga #484 has 4.65:1, and the 11 1/2' Eeek #407 has 5.75:1. An Eeek built to the same proportions as Anhinga would be 30" wide and have almost double the initial stability at the same displacement...
>

> Regarding EEEK! sailing qualities, the Bolger essay about the boat is in "The Folding Schooner" and perhaps another Bolger book. It was a proof of concept scaled down model of a proposed economy cruiser of about 34' as I recall. This stretch will be unique, but there are pictures of a boat you can find on the web named "Sandy Bottoms" that I think came in at about 25', and exactly the same shape.
>
> Don
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <eric14850@...> wrote:
>
> I appreciate the paint information. I applied EasyPoxy or equivalent at huge expense to my deck. It is fine except in the foot well where there is frequently small amounts of standing water. There it will not stick to the epoxy fiberglass covering the plywood. I have considered swimming pool paint but finally decided I would glue down closed cell foam for sound dampening and thermal insulation.
>
> So two questions:
> How does latex porch paint hold up in places where water sits, like the bottoms of small open boats, footwells, etc.?
> Has anyone had any experience, or have any information about painting closed cell foam? My intent is to add anti-skid properties as with any boat deck. (closed cell foam is quite slippery, especially when wet and I am thinking of covering all my decks with it for thermal insulation and sitting comfort.) I suppose I could get real fancy and glue canvas to the foam, and then paint the canvas.
>
> Eric
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Myles J. Swift" <mswift@> wrote:
> >
> > John K says
> >
> > I used latex porch paint on my PDR, Greyhound. It's holding up well, is
> > easy to apply, easy to touch up, and it's easy as can be to clean the
> > brushes and paint pots. :o) It takes a while to harden up good. I'll
> > probably use latex porch paint on future builds
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll second that and point out that it takes a couple of months to get
> > really hard. I've done two boats that way. With 3 or 4 week old paint they
> > both scratched easily. Now you can't mark them easily.
> >
> >
> >
> > MylesJ
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <eric14850@...> wrote:
>
> No, not blue or pink board. Closed cell rubber foam mattress material. Comes 1/8" to 3" or more in thickness. I would use 1/4 to 1/2".
> Eric
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "KK7B" <kk7b@> wrote:
> >
> > by closed cell foam, do you mean those blue or pink foam sheets, purchased in 4x8 sheets from the building supply company?
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <eric14850@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I appreciate the paint information. I applied EasyPoxy or equivalent at huge expense to my deck. It is fine except in the foot well where there is frequently small amounts of standing water. There it will not stick to the epoxy fiberglass covering the plywood. I have considered swimming pool paint but finally decided I would glue down closed cell foam for sound dampening and thermal insulation.
> > >
> > > So two questions:
> > > How does latex porch paint hold up in places where water sits, like the bottoms of small open boats, footwells, etc.?
> > > Has anyone had any experience, or have any information about painting closed cell foam? My intent is to add anti-skid properties as with any boat deck. (closed cell foam is quite slippery, especially when wet and I am thinking of covering all my decks with it for thermal insulation and sitting comfort.) I suppose I could get real fancy and glue canvas to the foam, and then paint the canvas.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > >
> > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Myles J. Swift" <mswift@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > John K says
> > > >
> > > > I used latex porch paint on my PDR, Greyhound. It's holding up well, is
> > > > easy to apply, easy to touch up, and it's easy as can be to clean the
> > > > brushes and paint pots. :o) It takes a while to harden up good. I'll
> > > > probably use latex porch paint on future builds
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll second that and point out that it takes a couple of months to get
> > > > really hard. I've done two boats that way. With 3 or 4 week old paint they
> > > > both scratched easily. Now you can't mark them easily.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > MylesJ
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "KK7B" <kk7b@...> wrote:
>
> by closed cell foam, do you mean those blue or pink foam sheets, purchased in 4x8 sheets from the building supply company?
>
> Rick
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <eric14850@> wrote:
> >
> > I appreciate the paint information. I applied EasyPoxy or equivalent at huge expense to my deck. It is fine except in the foot well where there is frequently small amounts of standing water. There it will not stick to the epoxy fiberglass covering the plywood. I have considered swimming pool paint but finally decided I would glue down closed cell foam for sound dampening and thermal insulation.
> >
> > So two questions:
> > How does latex porch paint hold up in places where water sits, like the bottoms of small open boats, footwells, etc.?
> > Has anyone had any experience, or have any information about painting closed cell foam? My intent is to add anti-skid properties as with any boat deck. (closed cell foam is quite slippery, especially when wet and I am thinking of covering all my decks with it for thermal insulation and sitting comfort.) I suppose I could get real fancy and glue canvas to the foam, and then paint the canvas.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Myles J. Swift" <mswift@> wrote:
> > >
> > > John K says
> > >
> > > I used latex porch paint on my PDR, Greyhound. It's holding up well, is
> > > easy to apply, easy to touch up, and it's easy as can be to clean the
> > > brushes and paint pots. :o) It takes a while to harden up good. I'll
> > > probably use latex porch paint on future builds
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll second that and point out that it takes a couple of months to get
> > > really hard. I've done two boats that way. With 3 or 4 week old paint they
> > > both scratched easily. Now you can't mark them easily.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > MylesJ
> > >
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <eric14850@...> wrote:
>
> I appreciate the paint information. I applied EasyPoxy or equivalent at huge expense to my deck. It is fine except in the foot well where there is frequently small amounts of standing water. There it will not stick to the epoxy fiberglass covering the plywood. I have considered swimming pool paint but finally decided I would glue down closed cell foam for sound dampening and thermal insulation.
>
> So two questions:
> How does latex porch paint hold up in places where water sits, like the bottoms of small open boats, footwells, etc.?
> Has anyone had any experience, or have any information about painting closed cell foam? My intent is to add anti-skid properties as with any boat deck. (closed cell foam is quite slippery, especially when wet and I am thinking of covering all my decks with it for thermal insulation and sitting comfort.) I suppose I could get real fancy and glue canvas to the foam, and then paint the canvas.
>
> Eric
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Myles J. Swift" <mswift@> wrote:
> >
> > John K says
> >
> > I used latex porch paint on my PDR, Greyhound. It's holding up well, is
> > easy to apply, easy to touch up, and it's easy as can be to clean the
> > brushes and paint pots. :o) It takes a while to harden up good. I'll
> > probably use latex porch paint on future builds
> >
> >
> >
> > I'll second that and point out that it takes a couple of months to get
> > really hard. I've done two boats that way. With 3 or 4 week old paint they
> > both scratched easily. Now you can't mark them easily.
> >
> >
> >
> > MylesJ
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Myles J. Swift" <mswift@...> wrote:
>
> John K says
>
> I used latex porch paint on my PDR, Greyhound. It's holding up well, is
> easy to apply, easy to touch up, and it's easy as can be to clean the
> brushes and paint pots. :o) It takes a while to harden up good. I'll
> probably use latex porch paint on future builds
>
>
>
> I'll second that and point out that it takes a couple of months to get
> really hard. I've done two boats that way. With 3 or 4 week old paint they
> both scratched easily. Now you can't mark them easily.
>
>
>
> MylesJ
>

On 2/17/2011 8:11 PM, KK7B wrote:
> Thanks. I used Pettit Easypoxy undercoater and topside paint on my last two boat projects. Very expensive, even for small boats. When I lived on the water in Michigan's Keweenaw Peninsula, I bought a couple gallons of Sherwin Williams Tile-Clad enamel, two part paint for the topsides of offshore oil rigs. I used that for everything on the waterfront for about a decade until I ran out. It was a pain to mix and weathered to a chalky finish that rubbed off on your jeans, but was as nearly indestructible as any coating I've ever applied, and that was a rough climate. That was the paint on the Bolger Nymph for 20 years of outdoor uncovered storage before I started the restoration. I'm still looking for the right paint....
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Kohnen"<jhkohnen@...> wrote:
>> I used regular oil-based house paint on the hull of Sage and oil-based
>> porch paint on the decks. I used the different paint as an experiment. The
>> porch paint is harder than the house paint, but the house paint is holding
>> up fine.<shrug> I'll stick to the porch paint in the future though.
>>
>> I used Interlux Brightside$ on my sailing skiff, Pickle. Excellent paint,
>> but expen$ive! I used oil based porch paint on the floorboards and inside
>> bottom and am happy with the result.
>>
>> I used latex porch paint on my PDR, Greyhound. It's holding up well, is
>> easy to apply, easy to touch up, and it's easy as can be to clean the
>> brushes and paint pots. :o) It takes a while to harden up good. I'll
>> probably use latex porch paint on future builds.
>>
>> I don't know what Bob used on Wave Watcher.
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:16:50 -0800, Rick wrote:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Is that semi-gloss exterior latex on your boat and on Bob Larkin's
>>> Birdwatcher? Both look great.
>> --
>> John (jkohnen@...)
>> Show me a man who has enjoyed his school days and I'll show you
>> a bully and a bore. (Robert Morley)
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
> - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
> - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
> - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
> - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
> - Unsubscribe:bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> - Open discussion:bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

>
> ....Semi-gloss paint is just right; easy to clean yet dull enough to not show every dent, ding and unfairness. I've had good luck with porch paint, either latex or oil based....
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Kohnen" <jhkohnen@...> wrote:
>
> I used regular oil-based house paint on the hull of Sage and oil-based
> porch paint on the decks. I used the different paint as an experiment. The
> porch paint is harder than the house paint, but the house paint is holding
> up fine. <shrug> I'll stick to the porch paint in the future though.
>
> I used Interlux Brightside$ on my sailing skiff, Pickle. Excellent paint,
> but expen$ive! I used oil based porch paint on the floorboards and inside
> bottom and am happy with the result.
>
> I used latex porch paint on my PDR, Greyhound. It's holding up well, is
> easy to apply, easy to touch up, and it's easy as can be to clean the
> brushes and paint pots. :o) It takes a while to harden up good. I'll
> probably use latex porch paint on future builds.
>
> I don't know what Bob used on Wave Watcher.
>
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:16:50 -0800, Rick wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > Is that semi-gloss exterior latex on your boat and on Bob Larkin's
> > Birdwatcher? Both look great.
>
> --
> John (jkohnen@...)
> Show me a man who has enjoyed his school days and I'll show you
> a bully and a bore. (Robert Morley)
>

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:16:50 -0800, Rick wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Is that semi-gloss exterior latex on your boat and on Bob Larkin's
> Birdwatcher? Both look great.

--
John (jkohnen@...)
Show me a man who has enjoyed his school days and I'll show you
a bully and a bore. (Robert Morley)

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John Kohnen" <jhkohnen@...> wrote:
>
> Flat latex paint is a disaster on a boat. It picks up dirt and is hard to
> clean. Gloss paint emphasizes every flaw in the underlying structure.
> Semi-gloss paint is just right; easy to clean yet dull enough to not show
> every dent, ding and unfairness. I've had good luck with porch paint,
> either latex or oil based.
>
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:27:27 -0800, donnie wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Does anyone know why people recommend flat latex instead of gloss? I'm
> > trying to find something that hides dirt. real boat paint is not an
> > option on this economy cruiser.
>
>
> --
> John (jkohnen@...)
> Sunshine is delicious, rain is refreshing, wind braces us up,
> snow is exhilarating; there is really no such thing as bad
> weather, only different kinds of good weather. (John Ruskin)
>

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:27:27 -0800, donnie wrote:

> ...
> Does anyone know why people recommend flat latex instead of gloss? I'm
> trying to find something that hides dirt. real boat paint is not an
> option on this economy cruiser.


--
John (jkohnen@...)
Sunshine is delicious, rain is refreshing, wind braces us up,
snow is exhilarating; there is really no such thing as bad
weather, only different kinds of good weather. (John Ruskin)

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "etap28" <dave.irland@...> wrote:
>
> cool, look forward to reading the sailing reports. I can't figure out the deck... does it have a lot of crown or something? Hard to see in the photos
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donnieraydavis" <donnieraydavis@> wrote:
> >
> > what a difference side moulding and paint makes. Phil knows his design. added the "tiller", but made it more like a wing, bilateral for foot controls.
> > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/59410519@N07/5450349049/>
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donnieraydavis" <donnieraydavis@...> wrote:
>
> what a difference side moulding and paint makes. Phil knows his design. added the "tiller", but made it more like a wing, bilateral for foot controls.
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/59410519@N07/5450349049/>
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "donnieraydavis" <donnieraydavis@...> wrote:
>
> what a difference side moulding and paint makes. Phil knows his design. added the "tiller", but made it more like a wing, bilateral for foot controls.
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/59410519@N07/5450349049/>
>