Re: [bolger] Re: Logical leap to multihulls? (was SketchUp Chebacco)

Good post, just want to reinforce the idea... MAKE IT LONGER if you need more room.

From:Harry James <welshman@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:13 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Logical leap to multihulls? (was SketchUp Chebacco)

Well said John

HJ

On 5/15/2012 7:58 PM, John Kohnen wrote:
> Bolger's sharpies are actually pretty narrow, and depend on high freeboard
> and buoyancy up high for secondary stability. A narrow boat, even if
> flat-bottomed, will "give" a bit in waves -- the waterline won't quickly
> conform to the face of a wave, giving a more comfortable and safer ride in
> rough weather. This is completely opposite of the behavior of a fat
> flat-bottom boat, which will roll quickly to the angle of a wave, and will
> be more likely to be rolled over by a large wave. Multihulls are in effect
> very, very fat and have huge initial stability. They don't tip over
> easily, though the ride probably gets pretty rough, until they do...
> Multihulls have proven themselves seaworthy enough for most passages, so
> the choice between them and monohulls is largely personal preference, but
> Bolger's sharpies are really pretty far from multihulls and it's by no
> means a logical progression to get to multihulls from them.
>
> Modern ocean racers have gotten wider, shallower and squarer in section to
> carry lots of sail and plane along at phenomenal speeds, but this isn't a
> suitable trend to follow for pleasure boats, where comfort and
> seaworthiness should be most important. Increasing the beam of one of
> Bolger's sharpies would actually make it _less_ seaworthy. If one needs
> more room in a Bolger sharpie they should build a longer one.
>
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:59:43 -0700, Stefan T wrote:
>
>> One of the logics our movement has pushed is toward wider beam and
>> squarer cross sections to get shallower draft for greater speed,
>> comfort, and ultimately less-sinkable safety.
>> Take Phil's sharpies and extend the beam even further to 10 or fifteen
>> feet and what do you have? The beam and draft of a multihull....

Well said John

HJ

On 5/15/2012 7:58 PM, John Kohnen wrote:
> Bolger's sharpies are actually pretty narrow, and depend on high freeboard
> and buoyancy up high for secondary stability. A narrow boat, even if
> flat-bottomed, will "give" a bit in waves -- the waterline won't quickly
> conform to the face of a wave, giving a more comfortable and safer ride in
> rough weather. This is completely opposite of the behavior of a fat
> flat-bottom boat, which will roll quickly to the angle of a wave, and will
> be more likely to be rolled over by a large wave. Multihulls are in effect
> very, very fat and have huge initial stability. They don't tip over
> easily, though the ride probably gets pretty rough, until they do...
> Multihulls have proven themselves seaworthy enough for most passages, so
> the choice between them and monohulls is largely personal preference, but
> Bolger's sharpies are really pretty far from multihulls and it's by no
> means a logical progression to get to multihulls from them.
>
> Modern ocean racers have gotten wider, shallower and squarer in section to
> carry lots of sail and plane along at phenomenal speeds, but this isn't a
> suitable trend to follow for pleasure boats, where comfort and
> seaworthiness should be most important. Increasing the beam of one of
> Bolger's sharpies would actually make it _less_ seaworthy. If one needs
> more room in a Bolger sharpie they should build a longer one.
>
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:59:43 -0700, Stefan T wrote:
>
>> One of the logics our movement has pushed is toward wider beam and
>> squarer cross sections to get shallower draft for greater speed,
>> comfort, and ultimately less-sinkable safety.
>> Take Phil's sharpies and extend the beam even further to 10 or fifteen
>> feet and what do you have? The beam and draft of a multihull....

Bolger's sharpies are actually pretty narrow, and depend on high freeboard
and buoyancy up high for secondary stability. A narrow boat, even if
flat-bottomed, will "give" a bit in waves -- the waterline won't quickly
conform to the face of a wave, giving a more comfortable and safer ride in
rough weather. This is completely opposite of the behavior of a fat
flat-bottom boat, which will roll quickly to the angle of a wave, and will
be more likely to be rolled over by a large wave. Multihulls are in effect
very, very fat and have huge initial stability. They don't tip over
easily, though the ride probably gets pretty rough, until they do...
Multihulls have proven themselves seaworthy enough for most passages, so
the choice between them and monohulls is largely personal preference, but
Bolger's sharpies are really pretty far from multihulls and it's by no
means a logical progression to get to multihulls from them.

Modern ocean racers have gotten wider, shallower and squarer in section to
carry lots of sail and plane along at phenomenal speeds, but this isn't a
suitable trend to follow for pleasure boats, where comfort and
seaworthiness should be most important. Increasing the beam of one of
Bolger's sharpies would actually make it _less_ seaworthy. If one needs
more room in a Bolger sharpie they should build a longer one.

On Tue, 15 May 2012 09:59:43 -0700, Stefan T wrote:

> One of the logics our movement has pushed is toward wider beam and
> squarer cross sections to get shallower draft for greater speed,
> comfort, and ultimately less-sinkable safety.

> Take Phil's sharpies and extend the beam even further to 10 or fifteen
> feet and what do you have? The beam and draft of a multihull....

--
John (jkohnen@...)
A fool and his money are soon elected. (Will Rogers)

One of the logics our movement has pushed is toward wider beam and squarer cross sections to get shallower draft for greater speed, comfort, and ultimately less-sinkable safety.

Take Phil's sharpies and extend the beam even further to 10 or fifteen feet and what do you have? The beam and draft of a multihull. Cut out the hull in between the hull sides to reduce wetted surface and water pushed out of the way and what do you have? A multihull. A square boat of even wider beam and shallower draft minus the unneeded and speed robbing hull in between.

That's design logic. Then we temper logic by personal preference for more space, faster build, simpler set up, etc. The question becomes not one of logic but of finding joy in what we build. We all make these compromises, but Phil really did bring monohull design as close to multihull design as possible in a way no one had before.

All the Best,

Stefan

"One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous

Stefan Topolski MD

Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School

Clinical Instructor, U. of New England

Founder and Director of

Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3

1105 Mohawk Trail

Shelburne Falls, Ma.

http://www.cottagemed.org

Il giorno may 12, 2012, alle ore 3:55 pm, John ha scritto:

Sorry, Stefan, still can't buy your `logical leap' to multihulls.

First, maybe it's just me, but I don't see how logic and recreational boating go together. Not that there's no logic in it. But it's kind of like the logic of love. At which point I could `logically' rest my case, but...

There's the definition thing. Logic utterly depends on strictly defined definitions. You placed some emphasis on speed in your posts, so how, for example, are we to define it? Speed downwind, or upwind? Speed in a chop, or perhaps upwind in a narrow channel? Speed around the buoys or from point to point, including shoals and low bridges? Speed from side yard on the trailer to nosed up on the beach, beer in hand? Speed in relation to LWL? Or to cost? Maybe speed means fast at impressing girls! My favorite definition of speed for a sailboat: `faster than she looks.'

Same with `easy.' Same with `safe.' A mother's idea of `safe' is a far cry from her teenager's idea of the same thing. And my own idea of `easy to sail,' now, is a far cry from what my idea of `easy to sail' was 30 years ago.

For some, yea, it seems logical to make the leap to multihulls. For me, I've sailed them. I've enjoyed them. My 'logic' is to leave them for others to love.

Have fun!

John

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.
>
> Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes. For these flatter and wider serve well.
>
> However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter, shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping, 'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.
>
> In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve all of these in spades. Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch can resemble any of our craft.
>
> Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before sundown.
>
> Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.
>
> Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,
> Stefan
>
> "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
>
>
>http://www.cottagemed.org
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:
>
> Stefan,
>
> I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.
>
> Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!
>
> Keep smiling!
>
> John
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
> >
> > The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
> >
> >http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
> >
> > Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
> >
> > .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
> >
> > All the Best,
> > Stefan
> >
> > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
> >
> > Stefan Topolski MD
> > Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
> > Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
> > Founder and Director of
> > Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
> > 1105 Mohawk Trail
> > Shelburne Falls, Ma.
> >
> >http://www.cottagemed.org
> >
> >
> >
>

My opinion is that multihulls can be loads of fun on flat water. I'll stick to monohull designs in swells though, thanks.

Scot

Sent from my iPhone

On May 12, 2012, at 2:55 PM, "John" <oneillparker@...> wrote:

Sorry, Stefan, still can't buy your `logical leap' to multihulls.

First, maybe it's just me, but I don't see how logic and recreational boating go together. Not that there's no logic in it. But it's kind of like the logic of love. At which point I could `logically' rest my case, but...

There's the definition thing. Logic utterly depends on strictly defined definitions. You placed some emphasis on speed in your posts, so how, for example, are we to define it? Speed downwind, or upwind? Speed in a chop, or perhaps upwind in a narrow channel? Speed around the buoys or from point to point, including shoals and low bridges? Speed from side yard on the trailer to nosed up on the beach, beer in hand? Speed in relation to LWL? Or to cost? Maybe speed means fast at impressing girls! My favorite definition of speed for a sailboat: `faster than she looks.'

Same with `easy.' Same with `safe.' A mother's idea of `safe' is a far cry from her teenager's idea of the same thing. And my own idea of `easy to sail,' now, is a far cry from what my idea of `easy to sail' was 30 years ago.

For some, yea, it seems logical to make the leap to multihulls. For me, I've sailed them. I've enjoyed them. My 'logic' is to leave them for others to love.

Have fun!

John

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.
>
> Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes. For these flatter and wider serve well.
>
> However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter, shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping, 'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.
>
> In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve all of these in spades. Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch can resemble any of our craft.
>
> Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before sundown.
>
> Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.
>
> Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,
> Stefan
>
> "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
>
>
>http://www.cottagemed.org
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:
>
> Stefan,
>
> I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.
>
> Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!
>
> Keep smiling!
>
> John
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
> >
> > The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
> >
> >http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
> >
> > Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
> >
> > .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
> >
> > All the Best,
> > Stefan
> >
> > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
> >
> > Stefan Topolski MD
> > Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
> > Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
> > Founder and Director of
> > Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
> > 1105 Mohawk Trail
> > Shelburne Falls, Ma.
> >
> >http://www.cottagemed.org
> >
> >
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.
>
> Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes. For these flatter and wider serve well.
>
> However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter, shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping, 'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.
>
> In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve all of these in spades. Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch can resemble any of our craft.
>
> Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before sundown.
>
> Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.
>
> Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,
> Stefan
>
> "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
>
>
>http://www.cottagemed.org
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:
>
> Stefan,
>
> I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.
>
> Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!
>
> Keep smiling!
>
> John
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
> >
> > The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
> >
> >http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
> >
> > Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
> >
> > .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
> >
> > All the Best,
> > Stefan
> >
> > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
> >
> > Stefan Topolski MD
> > Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
> > Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
> > Founder and Director of
> > Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
> > 1105 Mohawk Trail
> > Shelburne Falls, Ma.
> >
> >http://www.cottagemed.org
> >
> >
> >
>

http://smalltridesign.com/masts/Two-Masts-on-Multihull.html

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

> > nothin' holdin' me back n0W WHO0 H0O! PPPPrrroouwwwwpphhhtppppblath

> > > Can you build a multihull without staying the rig?

> > Hold on.

New Newick

http://talanoa.org/TDP_Development_Projects.html

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> nothin' holdin' me back n0W WHO0 H0O! PPPPrrroouwwwwpphhhtppppblath
>
> > Can you build a multihull without staying the rig?
>
> Hold on.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Sorensen <tdsoren@...> wrote:

> I've never seen this design.Â where would there be a photo or sketch?

> Tom
________________________________
> From: "philbolger@..." <philbolger@...>
>
> Hence the reference to design #649 "B-31
> Schorpioen"...Â With the T-50 she ought to move well under
> power.

Shoal, and roomy below, great workshop space, low windage height, but 6:1 slenderness? on 9ft centres? at 15deg heel? ,,, but then why not indeed? The illustration:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Cruising%20Cat%20Sailboat/

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

> Then. ... Then there is:
>
> "31' Cruising Catamaran
> 31'0"x16'0"x1'6"
> I made this concept study as an illustration for a British book about cruising multihull design. The wide hulls with all accommodation in the hulls, and the asymmetrical layout with most of the propulsion and control in one hull and most of the accommodation in the other, are notions I've often pushed, without arousing much interest so far. The 'back staysail' is to balance the exaggerated lee helm of a reefed staysail cat"
>
> This is what grabs me: Quote "_often_" unquote. I know of only two, and they both share at least another really attention grabbing thing mentioned in that Derek Harvey "Cruising Multihulls" book: less "jagged" catamaran stability curve. Oh, and mono sized docking fees...
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/messages/52816
>http://hallman.org/bolger/CruisingCat31/CruisingCat31.png
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/messages/52747?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
> ( square hull cat thread:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/40850)
>
> "... The 'back staysail' is to balance the exaggerated lee helm of a reefed staysail cat. This rig is docile to handle though, unless sailed by a super expert, it isn't as fast as a conventional cat or sloop. For a mulithull the worthwhile virtue is that it has minimal tendency to push the bow down."
>
> Docile? Fine. Not as fast? Who cares, we're cruising. An unstayed pivoting tabernacled rig would be great on this boat. I feel there's a lot that could be done based on this sketched cruising cat, test what Phil was exploring and explore some further. ... Biplane rig presents itself.

Across over 430 design-columns, MAIB has been the forum-of-record in which we've shared in broad scope and much detail many of the designs, though not all.
Until the new books and (monster-) catalogue, that is the source.
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----
From:Tom Sorensen
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2012 1:39 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

I've never seen this design. where would there be a photo or sketch?

Tom

From:"philbolger@..." <philbolger@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:54 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

Hence the reference to design #649 "B-31 Schorpioen"... With the T-50 she ought to move well under power.
----- Original Message -----
From:daschultz8275@...
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:50 AM
Subject:[bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these
> criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull -
>wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer -
>unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.

And if you wish to go Bolger, it is Schorpioen. Bolger's trailerable, single-hander trimaran. This design was featured in MAIB a few years ago. The hull design is one of PB&F's latest. It will build fast and prove very safe, IMO.

The outer hulls retract cleanly. It has all inside control and virtually no cockpit. Arguably the peak of 'Birdwatcher' design family. About ~30-33 feet in length, all wood/glass plus some aluminum for the sail rig, and outrigged hulls. Bolger considered it a coastal cruiser.

I'd follow Michalak's advice and build the sail rig including the mast, and spars first, then the outrigger hardware, outrigger hulls, then the main hull. With all that stuff ready to bolt on and go sailing, the incentive to complete the project will grow.

Don

I've never seen this design. where would there be a photo or sketch?

Tom

From:"philbolger@..." <philbolger@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 2, 2012 8:54 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

Hence the reference to design #649 "B-31 Schorpioen"... With the T-50 she ought to move well under power.

----- Original Message -----
From:daschultz8275@...
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:50 AM
Subject:[bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these
> criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull -
>wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer -
>unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.

And if you wish to go Bolger, it is Schorpioen. Bolger's trailerable, single-hander trimaran. This design was featured in MAIB a few years ago. The hull design is one of PB&F's latest. It will build fast and prove very safe, IMO.

The outer hulls retract cleanly. It has all inside control and virtually no cockpit. Arguably the peak of 'Birdwatcher' design family. About ~30-33 feet in length, all wood/glass plus some aluminum for the sail rig, and outrigged hulls. Bolger considered it a coastal cruiser.

I'd follow Michalak's advice and build the sail rig including the mast, and spars first, then the outrigger hardware, outrigger hulls, then the main hull. With all that stuff ready to bolt on and go sailing, the incentive to complete the project will grow.

Don

Hence the reference to design #649 "B-31 Schorpioen"... With the T-50 she ought to move well under power.

----- Original Message -----
From:daschultz8275@...
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:50 AM
Subject:[bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these
> criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull -
>wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer -
>unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.

And if you wish to go Bolger, it is Schorpioen. Bolger's trailerable, single-hander trimaran. This design was featured in MAIB a few years ago. The hull design is one of PB&F's latest. It will build fast and prove very safe, IMO.

The outer hulls retract cleanly. It has all inside control and virtually no cockpit. Arguably the peak of 'Birdwatcher' design family. About ~30-33 feet in length, all wood/glass plus some aluminum for the sail rig, and outrigged hulls. Bolger considered it a coastal cruiser.

I'd follow Michalak's advice and build the sail rig including the mast, and spars first, then the outrigger hardware, outrigger hulls, then the main hull. With all that stuff ready to bolt on and go sailing, the incentive to complete the project will grow.

Don

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:

>
> I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these
> criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull -
>wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer -
>unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.

And if you wish to go Bolger, it is Schorpioen. Bolger's trailerable, single-hander trimaran. This design was featured in MAIB a few years ago. The hull design is one of PB&F's latest. It will build fast and prove very safe, IMO.

The outer hulls retract cleanly. It has all inside control and virtually no cockpit. Arguably the peak of 'Birdwatcher' design family. About ~30-33 feet in length, all wood/glass plus some aluminum for the sail rig, and outrigged hulls. Bolger considered it a coastal cruiser.

I'd follow Michalak's advice and build the sail rig including the mast, and spars first, then the outrigger hardware, outrigger hulls, then the main hull. With all that stuff ready to bolt on and go sailing, the incentive to complete the project will grow.

Don

So you have your eyes on # 649 "B-31" ?

----- Original Message -----
From:Stefan Topolski
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Tuesday, May 01, 2012 2:33 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: Wish2 SketchUp (was SketchUp Chebacco)

Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.

Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes. For these flatter and wider serve well.

However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter, shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping, 'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.

In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve all of these in spades. Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch can resemble any of our craft.

Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before sundown.

Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.

Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,
Stefan

"One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous

http://www.cottagemed.org

Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:

Stefan,

I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.

Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!

Keep smiling!

John

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
>
> The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
>
>http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
>
> Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
>
> .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
>
> All the Best,
> Stefan
>
> "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
>
> Stefan Topolski MD
> Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
> Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
> Founder and Director of
> Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
> 1105 Mohawk Trail
> Shelburne Falls, Ma.
>
>http://www.cottagemed.org
>
>
>

Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.

Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes. For these flatter and wider serve well.

However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter, shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping, 'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.

In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve all of these in spades. Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch can resemble any of our craft.

Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before sundown.

Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.

Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,

Stefan

"One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous

http://www.cottagemed.org

Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:

Stefan,

I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.

Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!

Keep smiling!

John

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
>
> The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
>
>http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
>
> Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
>
> .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
>
> All the Best,
> Stefan
>
> "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
>
> Stefan Topolski MD
> Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
> Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
> Founder and Director of
> Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
> 1105 Mohawk Trail
> Shelburne Falls, Ma.
>
>http://www.cottagemed.org
>
>
>

nothin' holdin' me back n0W WHO0 H0O! PPPPrrroouwwwwpphhhtppppblath

> Can you build a multihull without staying the rig?

Hold on.

Yes and Yes.

You can. Better, you can even go bi- or tri-"plane"! And quick and easy tabernacle pivoted mast lowering for that larger boat too.

Take a look at Bern Kohler K-design developments here's the FAQshttp://www.ikarus342000.com/FAQ.htm- at page bottom. If the site is unstable for your browser then you may view it as converted to pdfhttp://www.web2pdfconvert.com/

Gary Lepak built Dragon Wingshttp://web.archive.org/web/20030706102648/http://multihullboatbuilder.com/workshop/ThreeBoats/ThreeBoats91.html

http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/04/s/vintage/multihulls/index.cfm

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/MFthT6DzgStGWoZAc-HGGQGyc5Crp-X1Kyg9XlFU9rjwgrzgg2Q\
fQu0OA6M8QP2aJ4Dxa7E3QVTEn_BpsP-2/Dragon%20Wings%20article

Pete Hill (Annie's exhttp://www.annie-hill.blogspot.com.au/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Hill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T9yrQR8nl8) and Annie (for most of the build) built a Junk Rigged catamaran designed by Pete
http://www.multihull.de/news/2003/juni.htm#chinamoon
he sold that recently, went through some other boatshttp://www.towndock.net/shipping/2007_05_01_shiparchive.html
and is now nearing completeion of a stretched KD860 (smaller than C M was and very nice) with modifications including tabenacled pivoting biplane Poppy junk rig.

Yves Parlier also winged ithttp://www.thedailysail.com/offshore/04/47936/we-take-a-close-look-at-yves-parliers-radical-new-60ft-catamaran

http://www.thedailysail.com/offshore/06/48896/yves-parlier-talks-to-thedailysail-about-his-plans-for-m%C3%A9diatis-r%C3%A9gion-aquitaine-a

Pete Gosshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Gossdid it fast too with Team Phillipshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Philips http://www.petegoss.com/journey-to-date-team-philips.php

Tony Bigras designed built and extensively cruised his 16ft cat with unstayed biplane rig, Miss Cindy, and liked it
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/09/outings/cindy/index.htm
http://turtleislands.net/tmc/default.html
http://turtleislands.net/tmc/

Thomas Firth Jones did it initially to one of his personally owned boats, the plywood version of the Tanenui he designed for Wharram, and didn't like it. Others have done it, and continue to do it to Wharram boats (a big one soon) and others, and like it. The list is long and mostly positive.

> > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these
> > criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull -
> > wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer -
> > unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.

PCB went wide, BOA that is, but narrow hulls in some sharpie catamaran designs and sketches. Trailered too, and some beaut Vee bottomed working powered catamarans. Then. ... Then there is:

"31' Cruising Catamaran
31'0"x16'0"x1'6"
I made this concept study as an illustration for a British book about cruising multihull design. The wide hulls with all accommodation in the hulls, and the asymmetrical layout with most of the propulsion and control in one hull and most of the accommodation in the other, are notions I've often pushed, without arousing much interest so far. The 'back staysail' is to balance the exaggerated lee helm of a reefed staysail cat"

This is what grabs me: Quote "_often_" unquote. I know of only two, and they both share at least another really attention grabbing thing mentioned in that Derek Harvey "Cruising Multihulls" book: less "jagged" catamaran stability curve. Oh, and mono sized docking fees...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/messages/52816
http://hallman.org/bolger/CruisingCat31/CruisingCat31.png
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/messages/52747?threaded=1&m=e&var=1&tidx=1
( square hull cat thread:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/message/40850)

"... The 'back staysail' is to balance the exaggerated lee helm of a reefed staysail cat. This rig is docile to handle though, unless sailed by a super expert, it isn't as fast as a conventional cat or sloop. For a mulithull the worthwhile virtue is that it has minimal tendency to push the bow down."

Docile? Fine. Not as fast? Who cares, we're cruising. An unstayed pivoting tabernacled rig would be great on this boat. I feel there's a lot that could be done based on this sketched cruising cat, test what Phil was exploring and explore some further. ... Biplane rig presents itself.

> I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise
> of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease
> of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's
> not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.

There maybe advantages to 31' Cruising Catamaran over a skinnier hulled, biplaned, bi-hulled ESC... or unstayed rig on stretched ESC proa, way to go!

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John" <oneillparker@...> wrote:
>
> Stefan,
>
> I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.
>
> Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!
>
> Keep smiling!
>
> John
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
> >
> > The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
> >
> >http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
> >
> > Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
> >
> > .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
> >
> > All the Best,
> > Stefan
> >
> > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
> >
> > Stefan Topolski MD
> > Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
> > Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
> > Founder and Director of
> > Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
> > 1105 Mohawk Trail
> > Shelburne Falls, Ma.
> >
> >http://www.cottagemed.org

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
>
> The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
>
>http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
>
> Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
>
> .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
>
> All the Best,
> Stefan
>
> "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
>
> Stefan Topolski MD
> Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
> Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
> Founder and Director of
> Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
> 1105 Mohawk Trail
> Shelburne Falls, Ma.
>
>http://www.cottagemed.org
>
>
>

I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.

The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.

http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf

Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.

.... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...

All the Best,

Stefan

"One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous

Stefan Topolski MD

Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School

Clinical Instructor, U. of New England

Founder and Director of

Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3

1105 Mohawk Trail

Shelburne Falls, Ma.

http://www.cottagemed.org

Il giorno abr 22, 2012, alle ore 12:42 pm, John ha scritto:

Thanks everyone for all the kind comments, and sorry to take so long to get back to you ("on the road again...").

You're right about the 'not intolerable.' But I kind of feel that most crews and skippers can have a fine ol' time out on the water not even noticing they're dragging the stern around all day. But they will certainly notice sailing on their ear all day long! And the boat is so high and narrow that climbing up to windward in a breeze will hardly help at all. To me that's a huge issue.

I'm drawn to Wish II for it's potential as an ocean going trailer sailor. High and narrow, translates to potentially excellent ultimate stability. I'd go with water ballast, making it unsinkable without relying on flotation, so serving as it's own lifeboat. Ballast tanks take up space, but could conceivably be engineered to serve as storage of canned goods and heavy consumables and replaced with water when used. Bonus: lighter on the trailer.

But...I'd like to have a boat that could also be a fun daysailor, with other people aboard, so I'm thinking of going whole hog and designing my own, using Wish II as a baseline. Present thinking: go longer, 22' on only a few hundred pounds more displacement, mostly as more ballast (water). Longer gives more stability and eases the fore and aft trim issue. An inch or so wider, maybe (narrow means fast, all else being equal, and I like that about Wish II and sharpies in general). Open up the bow to make it a square boat. (Better initial stability) Inboard the rudder and center everything up back aft as in Chebacco, with cut out transom for an outboard. I'd also like to arc the bottom for additional strength and also to ease the hard chine. Speed again. (I don't need it to be an 'instant boat.') With water ballast tanks taking up space anyway, a centerboard trunk at that point may prove reasonably unobtrusive.

It's all dream stuff for now. A host of real life issues press. That's what's fun about Sketchup. Cheap build!
John

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> John, a note about the "too narrow" comment displayed for the 'Wish II' model (a personal favourite design). I like your models' looks and will download the program just to view, thanks.
>
> - I'm always going back to Wish for some new idea or other. The latest is flush deck aft, no cockpit, inside control, a captain's chair, a small central only slightly raised house... it's something after a much modified distance cruising Martha Jane I saw once and a smaller Michalak's Robbsboat. An inch or four deeper immersion than the waterline shown on the drawings ups the storeage self-sufficiency for good "stay out" cruising range along coasts with few opportunities for reprovisioning or watering... steel bottom plating/increased stores/big tidal runs.
>
> About: "He thought it was "plain ugly," too narrow given the high freeboard for live ballast (warm bodies) topside to do much good,"
>
> Narrowness wasn't the particular problem (18 ply sheets), trim was.
>
> Location of crew weight too aft due to placement of the cockpit in relation to centre of bouyancy was. That is, it wasn't athwartships stability, rather it was for 'n aft trim. Hence two of the four crew to sail below decks forward, but even with only two crew their location in the cockpit was still not ideal (yet i've always supposed gear and stores could be placed forward to trim in that case).
>
> The steel ballast quantum made the high freeboard not "intolerable", even if not "good".
>

John, a note about the "too narrow" comment displayed for the 'Wish II' model (a personal favourite design). I like your models' looks and will download the program just to view, thanks.

- I'm always going back to Wish for some new idea or other. The latest is flush deck aft, no cockpit, inside control, a captain's chair, a small central only slightly raised house... it's something after a much modified distance cruising Martha Jane I saw once and a smaller Michalak's Robbsboat. An inch or four deeper immersion than the waterline shown on the drawings ups the storeage self-sufficiency for good "stay out" cruising range along coasts with few opportunities for reprovisioning or watering... steel bottom plating/increased stores/big tidal runs.

About: "He thought it was "plain ugly," too narrow given the high freeboard for live ballast (warm bodies) topside to do much good,"

Narrowness wasn't the particular problem (18 ply sheets), trim was.

Location of crew weight too aft due to placement of the cockpit in relation to centre of bouyancy was. That is, it wasn't athwartships stability, rather it was for 'n aft trim. Hence two of the four crew to sail below decks forward, but even with only two crew their location in the cockpit was still not ideal (yet i've always supposed gear and stores could be placed forward to trim in that case).

The steel ballast quantum made the high freeboard not "intolerable", even if not "good".

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John" <oneillparker@...> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Feeding my intermittent obsession with Bolger boats, I've spent the last few weeks 'building' a Chebacco using Google SketchUp, a 3d modeling program free from Google. >http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=d64298cad64ce87b76b8742e48a3d92a&prevstart=0
>
> It's a quick download for the full program.

I don't believe so. but you do need the program, available here...

http://sketchup.google.com/download/

Once you have it up and running, you can download the model directly into an open file by going to the 3D warehouse (under 'File') and searching Chebacco. With the model downloaded, press 'o' to orbit the model and see it from different angles, 'z' to zoom in or out (double click the magnifying glass while hovering over the thing you want to see, and it will zoom in on that point).

You can also modify the model to your heart's content. Paint it different colors. Scale the cabin house up to see what it looks like taller, or wider. You can fashion a horizontal plane at the waterline, paint it from the 'water' palette to turn it into an ocean, and angle the whole model over to see what it looks like heeled over in a breeze! You can even see it from 'underwater'. See what the waterline plane looks like at various angles, and displacements. Then you can export a 2d jpeg of the scene into your computer to use as wallpaper. that's what I did with mine. It's a toy. Play with it...

John

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Neal Sandidge <nsandidge@...> wrote:
>
> Does one need to sign up for google just to view your model?
>
> Neal
>

This is a great model! It really makes the plans come alive. I appreciate the sleeping figure inside the cabin to give a relative measure of the space in there. You do fantastic work!

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John" <oneillparker@...> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Feeding my intermittent obsession with Bolger boats, I've spent the last few weeks 'building' a Chebacco using Google SketchUp, a 3d modeling program free from Google. All (or most) or the parts are there and made solid, not just as a skin. I didn't have a full set of plans so there are mistakes and simplifications. I rigged it with the sprit boom rig mostly because I already had one modeled but also because I've never heard of one rigged that way, and that's how I'd rig it if I had to time to build one.
>
>http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=d64298cad64ce87b76b8742e48a3d92a&prevstart=0
>
> It's a quick download for the full program. I built everything as 'components' so you can move pieces out of the way (or just delete them) to better see other pieces. The 'section' tool is a great way of viewing the design. The model includes Bolger's body plan drawing, with the bow of the model poking through showing how closely it matches the the drawn lines. The full program, by the way, includes various ways of viewing models, including using the sun as shading, varying light and dark intensities, using fog effects, and viewing it drawn in perspective and even 2 line perspective.
>
> John O'Neill
>

Fantastic job! I know that took a lot of work...

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John" <oneillparker@...> wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> Feeding my intermittent obsession with Bolger boats, I've spent the last few weeks 'building' a Chebacco using Google SketchUp, a 3d modeling program free from Google. All (or most) or the parts are there and made solid, not just as a skin. I didn't have a full set of plans so there are mistakes and simplifications. I rigged it with the sprit boom rig mostly because I already had one modeled but also because I've never heard of one rigged that way, and that's how I'd rig it if I had to time to build one.
>
>http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=d64298cad64ce87b76b8742e48a3d92a&prevstart=0
>
> It's a quick download for the full program. I built everything as 'components' so you can move pieces out of the way (or just delete them) to better see other pieces. The 'section' tool is a great way of viewing the design. The model includes Bolger's body plan drawing, with the bow of the model poking through showing how closely it matches the the drawn lines. The full program, by the way, includes various ways of viewing models, including using the sun as shading, varying light and dark intensities, using fog effects, and viewing it drawn in perspective and even 2 line perspective.
>
> John O'Neill
>

Does one need to sign up for google just to view your model?

Neal

To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
From: oneillparker@...
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 05:41:08 +0000
Subject: [bolger] SketchUp Chebacco

Hey all,

Feeding my intermittent obsession with Bolger boats, I've spent the last few weeks 'building' a Chebacco using Google SketchUp, a 3d modeling program free from Google. All (or most) or the parts are there and made solid, not just as a skin. I didn't have a full set of plans so there are mistakes and simplifications. I rigged it with the sprit boom rig mostly because I already had one modeled but also because I've never heard of one rigged that way, and that's how I'd rig it if I had to time to build one.

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=d64298cad64ce87b76b8742e48a3d92a&prevstart=0

It's a quick download for the full program. I built everything as 'components' so you can move pieces out of the way (or just delete them) to better see other pieces. The 'section' tool is a great way of viewing the design. The model includes Bolger's body plan drawing, with the bow of the model poking through showing how closely it matches the the drawn lines. The full program, by the way, includes various ways of viewing models, including using the sun as shading, varying light and dark intensities, using fog effects, and viewing it drawn in perspective and even 2 line perspective.

John O'Neill