Re: wider as 29

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> Eric I lost a couple of your posts so replied to this older one. I
> spent a week on My Albin Vega sailing and doing a little work while at
> Anchor. Had a great time. The marina I am in has lost about half of the
> boats that have been kept there and many of them are up for sale and are
> selling for nothing. To build a new boat I would have to sell mine and
> If I needed to sell the new boat it would have to go really cheap. I
> came to the conclusion that this is just not the time to be building and
> selling boats.
> There is just to much that is up in the air to make such a change.
> We have decided to keep our house maybe rent it out some but let our
> kids worry about what the heck to do with it later.
> The boat we have has enough space to live aboard in the winters
> down in Florida and the Bahamas and stay here in the house in Virginia
> during the summer. The Vega is a bit cramped and draws more water than
> I would like but is easy to sail and won't take a year to build another
> year to get ready to go cruising. At my age those two years are
> valuable ones for cruising and sailing.
> So we had a long talk, an that is the decision we have made. and
> believe it or not we are feeling much relieved that we don't have to
> tackle the big job of building a boat.
> I am sorry I worried you with my problem but in truth I guess old
> age conservatism has won out over youthful adventure. Thanks much, Doug
>
>
> On 06/02/2012 09:18 PM, Eric wrote:
> >
> > Wolf Trap's cat yawl rig is handsome, but the schooner rig is so
> > beautifully married to the hull form that you would just have to go
> > slower in order to give people more time to admire Wolf Trap. (Picture
> > and line drawings here
> >http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search/label/Wolftrap) I
> > took notice of the bagged flat spinnaker and other large sail bag that
> > I assume carried a staysail to fly off the main mast. Your demonic
> > desire for ever more canvas brought a smile of appreciation to my face.
> >
> > Wolf Trap is a hard act to follow. Perhaps there is a possibility for
> > your last boat to be one you could love as much as you loved Wolf
> > Trap. I have a possibility to suggest which might interest others on
> > this list.
> >
> > In most cases making a good design wider on the same length spoils the
> > good of a design, but lengthening a good design on the same width
> > often produces an even better boat. It is a safer bet, in any case.
> >
> > Doug, from what you have said, I gather Wolf Trap had standing
> > headroom in the head under the hatch. The hatch being only a few
> > inches higher than the deck would mean that the flush deck would not
> > have to be raised very much to get standing headroom throughout the
> > cabin. Doing so would spoil Wolf Trap, but not if Wolf Trap was scaled
> > up. Stability increases with length as well as width, so it might be
> > possible to get a very nice boat by stretching the length and hight
> > dimensions, and perhaps not even needing to expand the width
> > dimension. Obviously aluminum would be ideal, but the same expansions
> > that are good for building in aluminum are directly transferable to
> > plywood. Phil Bolger was a master at drawing designs which wasted
> > little material. An enlarged Wolf Trap might be much more wasteful of
> > material, but some wasted MDO plywood might be easily tolerated. Mono
> > coupe construction could be had by epoxy fiberglass coating interior
> > and exterior and joining interior components one with the hull, as
> > with the original Wolf Trap. A different design, but a design perhaps
> > worth paying for. With schooner rig you would have an easy rig to
> > handle that would not require that you set enough sail to beat forty
> > footers.
> >
> > A significant advantage of a slightly enlarged plywood Wolf Trap over
> > a Trillo would be resale value. This would be an advantage over an AS
> > design as well. It would be a somewhat more difficult boat for an
> > amateur to build, but not for a skilled boat builder. So the cost
> > difference between a Trillo or AS design would simply be whatever
> > differences there were of displacement, and differences in
> > complication of interior, rig and auxilliary propulsion. It might not
> > amount to much, or at least be an economical trade off.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric, Sorry I did not get back before now. Yes you are right about the
> > > weight of Wolftrap. Had not really thought that much about it but she
> > > weighed 5000 lbs as she was when we first sailed her with500 lbs of
> > > ballast. Later we added more and finally as a schooner she must have
> > > weighed maybe 6500 lbs. She was build very light with tubing for
> > > stringers and almost no frames and using aluminum furniture that was
> > > built into the hull. She was mono coupe construction. She was
> > > intended for Chesapeake bay sailing and we added the ballast to get her
> > > a little heavier. When we first began sailing her she didn't even have
> > > a chine in the water. She was intended to carry a lot of sail for the
> > > light air of the Bay here and so was reefed early. We sailed her off
> > > the wind with main, mizzen, flat spinnaker and a Mizzen stay-sail. On
> > > my Blog "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> > > description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> > > was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> > > you busy for a while.:-)
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> >http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9
> > <http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9>
> >
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> Eric I lost a couple of your posts so replied to this older one. I
> spent a week on My Albin Vega sailing and doing a little work while at
> Anchor. Had a great time. The marina I am in has lost about half of the
> boats that have been kept there and many of them are up for sale and are
> selling for nothing. To build a new boat I would have to sell mine and
> If I needed to sell the new boat it would have to go really cheap. I
> came to the conclusion that this is just not the time to be building and
> selling boats.
> There is just to much that is up in the air to make such a change.
> We have decided to keep our house maybe rent it out some but let our
> kids worry about what the heck to do with it later.
> The boat we have has enough space to live aboard in the winters
> down in Florida and the Bahamas and stay here in the house in Virginia
> during the summer. The Vega is a bit cramped and draws more water than
> I would like but is easy to sail and won't take a year to build another
> year to get ready to go cruising. At my age those two years are
> valuable ones for cruising and sailing.
> So we had a long talk, an that is the decision we have made. and
> believe it or not we are feeling much relieved that we don't have to
> tackle the big job of building a boat.
> I am sorry I worried you with my problem but in truth I guess old
> age conservatism has won out over youthful adventure. Thanks much, Doug
>
>
> On 06/02/2012 09:18 PM, Eric wrote:
> >
> > Wolf Trap's cat yawl rig is handsome, but the schooner rig is so
> > beautifully married to the hull form that you would just have to go
> > slower in order to give people more time to admire Wolf Trap. (Picture
> > and line drawings here
> >http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search/label/Wolftrap) I
> > took notice of the bagged flat spinnaker and other large sail bag that
> > I assume carried a staysail to fly off the main mast. Your demonic
> > desire for ever more canvas brought a smile of appreciation to my face.
> >
> > Wolf Trap is a hard act to follow. Perhaps there is a possibility for
> > your last boat to be one you could love as much as you loved Wolf
> > Trap. I have a possibility to suggest which might interest others on
> > this list.
> >
> > In most cases making a good design wider on the same length spoils the
> > good of a design, but lengthening a good design on the same width
> > often produces an even better boat. It is a safer bet, in any case.
> >
> > Doug, from what you have said, I gather Wolf Trap had standing
> > headroom in the head under the hatch. The hatch being only a few
> > inches higher than the deck would mean that the flush deck would not
> > have to be raised very much to get standing headroom throughout the
> > cabin. Doing so would spoil Wolf Trap, but not if Wolf Trap was scaled
> > up. Stability increases with length as well as width, so it might be
> > possible to get a very nice boat by stretching the length and hight
> > dimensions, and perhaps not even needing to expand the width
> > dimension. Obviously aluminum would be ideal, but the same expansions
> > that are good for building in aluminum are directly transferable to
> > plywood. Phil Bolger was a master at drawing designs which wasted
> > little material. An enlarged Wolf Trap might be much more wasteful of
> > material, but some wasted MDO plywood might be easily tolerated. Mono
> > coupe construction could be had by epoxy fiberglass coating interior
> > and exterior and joining interior components one with the hull, as
> > with the original Wolf Trap. A different design, but a design perhaps
> > worth paying for. With schooner rig you would have an easy rig to
> > handle that would not require that you set enough sail to beat forty
> > footers.
> >
> > A significant advantage of a slightly enlarged plywood Wolf Trap over
> > a Trillo would be resale value. This would be an advantage over an AS
> > design as well. It would be a somewhat more difficult boat for an
> > amateur to build, but not for a skilled boat builder. So the cost
> > difference between a Trillo or AS design would simply be whatever
> > differences there were of displacement, and differences in
> > complication of interior, rig and auxilliary propulsion. It might not
> > amount to much, or at least be an economical trade off.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric, Sorry I did not get back before now. Yes you are right about the
> > > weight of Wolftrap. Had not really thought that much about it but she
> > > weighed 5000 lbs as she was when we first sailed her with500 lbs of
> > > ballast. Later we added more and finally as a schooner she must have
> > > weighed maybe 6500 lbs. She was build very light with tubing for
> > > stringers and almost no frames and using aluminum furniture that was
> > > built into the hull. She was mono coupe construction. She was
> > > intended for Chesapeake bay sailing and we added the ballast to get her
> > > a little heavier. When we first began sailing her she didn't even have
> > > a chine in the water. She was intended to carry a lot of sail for the
> > > light air of the Bay here and so was reefed early. We sailed her off
> > > the wind with main, mizzen, flat spinnaker and a Mizzen stay-sail. On
> > > my Blog "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> > > description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> > > was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> > > you busy for a while.:-)
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> >http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9
> > <http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9>
> >
> >
>

On 06/02/2012 09:18 PM, Eric wrote:

 

Wolf Trap's cat yawl rig is handsome, but the schooner rig is so beautifully married to the hull form that you would just have to go slower in order to give people more time to admire Wolf Trap. (Picture and line drawings herehttp://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search/label/Wolftrap) I took notice of the bagged flat spinnaker and other large sail bag that I assume carried a staysail to fly off the main mast. Your demonic desire for ever more canvas brought a smile of appreciation to my face.

Wolf Trap is a hard act to follow. Perhaps there is a possibility for your last boat to be one you could love as much as you loved Wolf Trap. I have a possibility to suggest which might interest others on this list.

In most cases making a good design wider on the same length spoils the good of a design, but lengthening a good design on the same width often produces an even better boat. It is a safer bet, in any case.

Doug, from what you have said, I gather Wolf Trap had standing headroom in the head under the hatch. The hatch being only a few inches higher than the deck would mean that the flush deck would not have to be raised very much to get standing headroom throughout the cabin. Doing so would spoil Wolf Trap, but not if Wolf Trap was scaled up. Stability increases with length as well as width, so it might be possible to get a very nice boat by stretching the length and hight dimensions, and perhaps not even needing to expand the width dimension. Obviously aluminum would be ideal, but the same expansions that are good for building in aluminum are directly transferable to plywood. Phil Bolger was a master at drawing designs which wasted little material. An enlarged Wolf Trap might be much more wasteful of material, but some wasted MDO plywood might be easily tolerated. Mono coupe construction could be had by epoxy fiberglass coating interior and exterior and joining interior components one with the hull, as with the original Wolf Trap. A different design, but a design perhaps worth paying for. With schooner rig you would have an easy rig to handle that would not require that you set enough sail to beat forty footers.

A significant advantage of a slightly enlarged plywood Wolf Trap over a Trillo would be resale value. This would be an advantage over an AS design as well. It would be a somewhat more difficult boat for an amateur to build, but not for a skilled boat builder. So the cost difference between a Trillo or AS design would simply be whatever differences there were of displacement, and differences in complication of interior, rig and auxilliary propulsion. It might not amount to much, or at least be an economical trade off.

Eric

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:
>
> Eric, Sorry I did not get back before now. Yes you are right about the
> weight of Wolftrap. Had not really thought that much about it but she
> weighed 5000 lbs as she was when we first sailed her with500 lbs of
> ballast. Later we added more and finally as a schooner she must have
> weighed maybe 6500 lbs. She was build very light with tubing for
> stringers and almost no frames and using aluminum furniture that was
> built into the hull. She was mono coupe construction. She was
> intended for Chesapeake bay sailing and we added the ballast to get her
> a little heavier. When we first began sailing her she didn't even have
> a chine in the water. She was intended to carry a lot of sail for the
> light air of the Bay here and so was reefed early. We sailed her off
> the wind with main, mizzen, flat spinnaker and a Mizzen stay-sail. On
> my Blog "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> you busy for a while.:-)
>
> Doug
>
>http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> I am well aware of Manatee as she and Sam Crockers 30 1/2ft Gull class
> ketch as well as Commodore Monro's thinking were at part of Wolftraps
> design. I have not seen anything on Ataraxia. I will look around on
> line and see if I can find her there. You said the magic words "go
> together easy" as that is also a big factor as my building crew are not
> boat builders and I expect they will take all I can muster to keep them
> from adding attic dormers someplace. They are surly enthusiastic if
> nothing else. I get a call from one or the other of them every night.
> I am the one holding up the whole show. Thanks,
> Doug
>
> On 06/03/2012 01:28 PM, Eric wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I think this is the perfect list for you to discuss your desires
> > in a boat. Your desires are very much the sort that are being thought
> > of precisely because Phil Bolger inspired the world to think way
> > outside the box.
> >
> > I'll be bold enough to say you do not need a boat that is slow to meet
> > your stated desires, though you do need a boat that you will sail
> > leisurely or motor.
> >
> > When drying out upright is more important than sailing performance,
> > there are lots of options.
> >
> > ROGUE's hull is Romp scaled down, a Bolger barge hull. I wanted a boat
> > that would dry out upright, so I built ROGUE without a keel. ROGUE has
> > a perfectly flat bottom. I reinforced the bottom with extra layers of
> > epoxy fiberglass and epoxy polyester(?) fabric that has exceptional
> > abrasion characteristics. Had I not been interested in keeping weights
> > down, and been interested in drying out on rocks I could have shod the
> > flat part of the bottom with a chunk or chunks of well bedded steel
> > bolted on. Even when raised to be even with the bottom the leeboards
> > allow ROGUE to sail as well as you require. Leeboards free up the
> > cabin and serve when a centerboard will be housed and useless.
> >
> > Another option can be seen in the drawings of the Bird of Dawning
> > (Different Boats) that did not get built: Two short keels side by side
> > amidships and a third shallow keel skeg to protect the rudder.
> >
> > Another option would be to build one of Bolger's barges to plans and
> > add two short keels outboard of the keel to ensure the boat would dry
> > out upright. I would arrange them so that they would bolt on and off
> > so a future owner could easily remove them if better performance was
> > wanted at the expense of drying out perfectly upright (to the bottom
> > contour). This solution could be applied to a stretched/heightened
> > Wolf Trap which I think might be able to be built somewhat less
> > expensively in plywood than a barge hull could be built (but I might
> > very well be wrong about this).
> >
> > Manatee (Different Boats) is about the size you want, and Jim Melcher
> > did add a short cabin trunk to create standing head room without
> > spoiling performance, but even that modification would not give you
> > standing headroom throughout.
> >
> > Ataraxia (BWAOM) is a motor sailer and though larger at 36', about
> > perfectly fits your needs, if you ignore the fact that it was designed
> > with a level of seaworthiness far in excess of your needs. You would
> > not want the dipping lug sail, but a junk rig could be directly
> > substituted with no other changes to the design. The ability to lower
> > the counterweighted mast at whim would make creek frontage upstream of
> > a bridge an option in your real estate search. The simplicity of the
> > interior, and the slab sided barge hull form, mean that this interior
> > would go together more cheaply than the same accommodations in a
> > smaller more complex shaped hull.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric,
> > > There is no doubt in my mind that Wolftrap was one of those perfect
> > > boats that show up now and the. That may be true but seems to imply
> > > that she was a boat that just happened which was not true.
> > > I had very specific reasons for building her and she met a great
> > > many of them. We sailed the Chesapeake bay and wanted to wonder the
> > > outer banks, the inland water way, Florida keys and wonder the Bahamas.
> > > I wanted a boat with no engine but I also wanted to build and sell one
> > > or two boats a year. Mr. Bolger convinced me that I would find very few
> > > buyers for an engine less sail boat so she had the smallest engine I
> > > could by that was diesel. Without an engine she needed to be able to
> > > sail enough to windward with the board up to sail into a shallow creek
> > > to anchor for the night.
> > > Because we were a metal working shop we could work well with
> > > aluminum. I was a schooner ketch enthusiast. I bought into the idea
> > > that I should try Bolgers rig. It was a rig I really did not understand
> > > or appreciate until I converted the boat to a schooner rig. I still
> > > like a schooner or ketch but would be inclined to go with one using
> > > Bolgers sprite rigs with the addition of a top sprite like my little
> > > Elver has so as to be able to quickly scandalize the sails for a quick
> > > reef of sorts.
> > > I am a firm believer that I personally can never go home. Wolf
> > > trap was a wonderful boat but I have been there, and done that, and she
> > > does not apply to my future needs.
> > > I am looking to a time when we will just want to be at home. A
> > > boat then needs to be one that we can moore close to shore in the
> > > shallows close to a small piece of water front land that I will buy.
> > > (Am now looking). I will be wanting to sail some but don't care if I
> > > have to motor sail to windward. I am getting slow so I don't care if
> > the
> > > boat is slow. I want room onboard and since I will be wanting to anchor
> > > or moor close to land in shallow water she needs to be flat bottomed to
> > > rest comfortably on the bottom during the winter months when north west
> > > winds blows the water out of the creeks. I guess what I am really
> > > considering is a house boat that can sail some.
> > > Even Bolgers AS 29 with so much rocker may not serve this drying
> > > out consideration all that well.
> > > I am thinking I want a barge that can sail some.
> > > This is not really the list for this kind of boat to be
> > > discussed on. But when I started I was considering a modified AS 29. I
> > > was hoping some one had build a wider one for a similar purpose. Doug
> > >
> > > ``
> > > On 06/02/2012 09:18 PM, Eric wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Wolf Trap's cat yawl rig is handsome, but the schooner rig is so
> > > > beautifully married to the hull form that you would just have to go
> > > > slower in order to give people more time to admire Wolf Trap.
> > (Picture
> > > > and line drawings here
> > > >http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search/label/Wolftrap) I
> > > > took notice of the bagged flat spinnaker and other large sail bag
> > that
> > > > I assume carried a staysail to fly off the main mast. Your demonic
> > > > desire for ever more canvas brought a smile of appreciation to my
> > face.
> > > >
> > > > Wolf Trap is a hard act to follow. Perhaps there is a possibility for
> > > > your last boat to be one you could love as much as you loved Wolf
> > > > Trap. I have a possibility to suggest which might interest others on
> > > > this list.
> > > >
> > > > In most cases making a good design wider on the same length spoils
> > the
> > > > good of a design, but lengthening a good design on the same width
> > > > often produces an even better boat. It is a safer bet, in any case.
> > > >
> > > > Doug, from what you have said, I gather Wolf Trap had standing
> > > > headroom in the head under the hatch. The hatch being only a few
> > > > inches higher than the deck would mean that the flush deck would not
> > > > have to be raised very much to get standing headroom throughout the
> > > > cabin. Doing so would spoil Wolf Trap, but not if Wolf Trap was
> > scaled
> > > > up. Stability increases with length as well as width, so it might be
> > > > possible to get a very nice boat by stretching the length and hight
> > > > dimensions, and perhaps not even needing to expand the width
> > > > dimension. Obviously aluminum would be ideal, but the same expansions
> > > > that are good for building in aluminum are directly transferable to
> > > > plywood. Phil Bolger was a master at drawing designs which wasted
> > > > little material. An enlarged Wolf Trap might be much more wasteful of
> > > > material, but some wasted MDO plywood might be easily tolerated. Mono
> > > > coupe construction could be had by epoxy fiberglass coating interior
> > > > and exterior and joining interior components one with the hull, as
> > > > with the original Wolf Trap. A different design, but a design perhaps
> > > > worth paying for. With schooner rig you would have an easy rig to
> > > > handle that would not require that you set enough sail to beat forty
> > > > footers.
> > > >
> > > > A significant advantage of a slightly enlarged plywood Wolf Trap over
> > > > a Trillo would be resale value. This would be an advantage over an AS
> > > > design as well. It would be a somewhat more difficult boat for an
> > > > amateur to build, but not for a skilled boat builder. So the cost
> > > > difference between a Trillo or AS design would simply be whatever
> > > > differences there were of displacement, and differences in
> > > > complication of interior, rig and auxilliary propulsion. It might not
> > > > amount to much, or at least be an economical trade off.
> > > >
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>
> > <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric, Sorry I did not get back before now. Yes you are right
> > about the
> > > > > weight of Wolftrap. Had not really thought that much about it
> > but she
> > > > > weighed 5000 lbs as she was when we first sailed her with500 lbs of
> > > > > ballast. Later we added more and finally as a schooner she must have
> > > > > weighed maybe 6500 lbs. She was build very light with tubing for
> > > > > stringers and almost no frames and using aluminum furniture that was
> > > > > built into the hull. She was mono coupe construction. She was
> > > > > intended for Chesapeake bay sailing and we added the ballast to
> > get her
> > > > > a little heavier. When we first began sailing her she didn't
> > even have
> > > > > a chine in the water. She was intended to carry a lot of sail
> > for the
> > > > > light air of the Bay here and so was reefed early. We sailed her off
> > > > > the wind with main, mizzen, flat spinnaker and a Mizzen
> > stay-sail. On
> > > > > my Blog "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures,
> > story and
> > > > > description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I
> > mentioned she
> > > > > was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This
> > will keep
> > > > > you busy for a while.:-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Doug
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9
> > <http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9>
> >
> > > >
> > <http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9
> > <http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

 

Wolf Trap's cat yawl rig is handsome, but the schooner rig is so beautifully married to the hull form that you would just have to go slower in order to give people more time to admire Wolf Trap. (Picture and line drawings herehttp://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search/label/Wolftrap) I took notice of the bagged flat spinnaker and other large sail bag that I assume carried a staysail to fly off the main mast. Your demonic desire for ever more canvas brought a smile of appreciation to my face.

Wolf Trap is a hard act to follow. Perhaps there is a possibility for your last boat to be one you could love as much as you loved Wolf Trap. I have a possibility to suggest which might interest others on this list.

In most cases making a good design wider on the same length spoils the good of a design, but lengthening a good design on the same width often produces an even better boat. It is a safer bet, in any case.

Doug, from what you have said, I gather Wolf Trap had standing headroom in the head under the hatch. The hatch being only a few inches higher than the deck would mean that the flush deck would not have to be raised very much to get standing headroom throughout the cabin. Doing so would spoil Wolf Trap, but not if Wolf Trap was scaled up. Stability increases with length as well as width, so it might be possible to get a very nice boat by stretching the length and hight dimensions, and perhaps not even needing to expand the width dimension. Obviously aluminum would be ideal, but the same expansions that are good for building in aluminum are directly transferable to plywood. Phil Bolger was a master at drawing designs which wasted little material. An enlarged Wolf Trap might be much more wasteful of material, but some wasted MDO plywood might be easily tolerated. Mono coupe construction could be had by epoxy fiberglass coating interior and exterior and joining interior components one with the hull, as with the original Wolf Trap. A different design, but a design perhaps worth paying for. With schooner rig you would have an easy rig to handle that would not require that you set enough sail to beat forty footers.

A significant advantage of a slightly enlarged plywood Wolf Trap over a Trillo would be resale value. This would be an advantage over an AS design as well. It would be a somewhat more difficult boat for an amateur to build, but not for a skilled boat builder. So the cost difference between a Trillo or AS design would simply be whatever differences there were of displacement, and differences in complication of interior, rig and auxilliary propulsion. It might not amount to much, or at least be an economical trade off.

Eric

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> Eric, Sorry I did not get back before now. Yes you are right about the
> weight of Wolftrap. Had not really thought that much about it but she
> weighed 5000 lbs as she was when we first sailed her with500 lbs of
> ballast. Later we added more and finally as a schooner she must have
> weighed maybe 6500 lbs. She was build very light with tubing for
> stringers and almost no frames and using aluminum furniture that was
> built into the hull. She was mono coupe construction. She was
> intended for Chesapeake bay sailing and we added the ballast to get her
> a little heavier. When we first began sailing her she didn't even have
> a chine in the water. She was intended to carry a lot of sail for the
> light air of the Bay here and so was reefed early. We sailed her off
> the wind with main, mizzen, flat spinnaker and a Mizzen stay-sail. On
> my Blog "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> you busy for a while.:-)
>
> Doug
>
>http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9

On 06/03/2012 01:28 PM, Eric wrote:

 

Oh, I think this is the perfect list for you to discuss your desires in a boat. Your desires are very much the sort that are being thought of precisely because Phil Bolger inspired the world to think way outside the box.

I'll be bold enough to say you do not need a boat that is slow to meet your stated desires, though you do need a boat that you will sail leisurely or motor.

When drying out upright is more important than sailing performance, there are lots of options.

ROGUE's hull is Romp scaled down, a Bolger barge hull. I wanted a boat that would dry out upright, so I built ROGUE without a keel. ROGUE has a perfectly flat bottom. I reinforced the bottom with extra layers of epoxy fiberglass and epoxy polyester(?) fabric that has exceptional abrasion characteristics. Had I not been interested in keeping weights down, and been interested in drying out on rocks I could have shod the flat part of the bottom with a chunk or chunks of well bedded steel bolted on. Even when raised to be even with the bottom the leeboards allow ROGUE to sail as well as you require. Leeboards free up the cabin and serve when a centerboard will be housed and useless.

Another option can be seen in the drawings of the Bird of Dawning (Different Boats) that did not get built: Two short keels side by side amidships and a third shallow keel skeg to protect the rudder.

Another option would be to build one of Bolger's barges to plans and add two short keels outboard of the keel to ensure the boat would dry out upright. I would arrange them so that they would bolt on and off so a future owner could easily remove them if better performance was wanted at the expense of drying out perfectly upright (to the bottom contour). This solution could be applied to a stretched/heightened Wolf Trap which I think might be able to be built somewhat less expensively in plywood than a barge hull could be built (but I might very well be wrong about this).

Manatee (Different Boats) is about the size you want, and Jim Melcher did add a short cabin trunk to create standing head room without spoiling performance, but even that modification would not give you standing headroom throughout.

Ataraxia (BWAOM) is a motor sailer and though larger at 36', about perfectly fits your needs, if you ignore the fact that it was designed with a level of seaworthiness far in excess of your needs. You would not want the dipping lug sail, but a junk rig could be directly substituted with no other changes to the design. The ability to lower the counterweighted mast at whim would make creek frontage upstream of a bridge an option in your real estate search. The simplicity of the interior, and the slab sided barge hull form, mean that this interior would go together more cheaply than the same accommodations in a smaller more complex shaped hull.

Eric

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:
>
> Eric,
> There is no doubt in my mind that Wolftrap was one of those perfect
> boats that show up now and the. That may be true but seems to imply
> that she was a boat that just happened which was not true.
> I had very specific reasons for building her and she met a great
> many of them. We sailed the Chesapeake bay and wanted to wonder the
> outer banks, the inland water way, Florida keys and wonder the Bahamas.
> I wanted a boat with no engine but I also wanted to build and sell one
> or two boats a year. Mr. Bolger convinced me that I would find very few
> buyers for an engine less sail boat so she had the smallest engine I
> could by that was diesel. Without an engine she needed to be able to
> sail enough to windward with the board up to sail into a shallow creek
> to anchor for the night.
> Because we were a metal working shop we could work well with
> aluminum. I was a schooner ketch enthusiast. I bought into the idea
> that I should try Bolgers rig. It was a rig I really did not understand
> or appreciate until I converted the boat to a schooner rig. I still
> like a schooner or ketch but would be inclined to go with one using
> Bolgers sprite rigs with the addition of a top sprite like my little
> Elver has so as to be able to quickly scandalize the sails for a quick
> reef of sorts.
> I am a firm believer that I personally can never go home. Wolf
> trap was a wonderful boat but I have been there, and done that, and she
> does not apply to my future needs.
> I am looking to a time when we will just want to be at home. A
> boat then needs to be one that we can moore close to shore in the
> shallows close to a small piece of water front land that I will buy.
> (Am now looking). I will be wanting to sail some but don't care if I
> have to motor sail to windward. I am getting slow so I don't care if the
> boat is slow. I want room onboard and since I will be wanting to anchor
> or moor close to land in shallow water she needs to be flat bottomed to
> rest comfortably on the bottom during the winter months when north west
> winds blows the water out of the creeks. I guess what I am really
> considering is a house boat that can sail some.
> Even Bolgers AS 29 with so much rocker may not serve this drying
> out consideration all that well.
> I am thinking I want a barge that can sail some.
> This is not really the list for this kind of boat to be
> discussed on. But when I started I was considering a modified AS 29. I
> was hoping some one had build a wider one for a similar purpose. Doug
>
> ``
> On 06/02/2012 09:18 PM, Eric wrote:
> >
> > Wolf Trap's cat yawl rig is handsome, but the schooner rig is so
> > beautifully married to the hull form that you would just have to go
> > slower in order to give people more time to admire Wolf Trap. (Picture
> > and line drawings here
> >http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search/label/Wolftrap) I
> > took notice of the bagged flat spinnaker and other large sail bag that
> > I assume carried a staysail to fly off the main mast. Your demonic
> > desire for ever more canvas brought a smile of appreciation to my face.
> >
> > Wolf Trap is a hard act to follow. Perhaps there is a possibility for
> > your last boat to be one you could love as much as you loved Wolf
> > Trap. I have a possibility to suggest which might interest others on
> > this list.
> >
> > In most cases making a good design wider on the same length spoils the
> > good of a design, but lengthening a good design on the same width
> > often produces an even better boat. It is a safer bet, in any case.
> >
> > Doug, from what you have said, I gather Wolf Trap had standing
> > headroom in the head under the hatch. The hatch being only a few
> > inches higher than the deck would mean that the flush deck would not
> > have to be raised very much to get standing headroom throughout the
> > cabin. Doing so would spoil Wolf Trap, but not if Wolf Trap was scaled
> > up. Stability increases with length as well as width, so it might be
> > possible to get a very nice boat by stretching the length and hight
> > dimensions, and perhaps not even needing to expand the width
> > dimension. Obviously aluminum would be ideal, but the same expansions
> > that are good for building in aluminum are directly transferable to
> > plywood. Phil Bolger was a master at drawing designs which wasted
> > little material. An enlarged Wolf Trap might be much more wasteful of
> > material, but some wasted MDO plywood might be easily tolerated. Mono
> > coupe construction could be had by epoxy fiberglass coating interior
> > and exterior and joining interior components one with the hull, as
> > with the original Wolf Trap. A different design, but a design perhaps
> > worth paying for. With schooner rig you would have an easy rig to
> > handle that would not require that you set enough sail to beat forty
> > footers.
> >
> > A significant advantage of a slightly enlarged plywood Wolf Trap over
> > a Trillo would be resale value. This would be an advantage over an AS
> > design as well. It would be a somewhat more difficult boat for an
> > amateur to build, but not for a skilled boat builder. So the cost
> > difference between a Trillo or AS design would simply be whatever
> > differences there were of displacement, and differences in
> > complication of interior, rig and auxilliary propulsion. It might not
> > amount to much, or at least be an economical trade off.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric, Sorry I did not get back before now. Yes you are right about the
> > > weight of Wolftrap. Had not really thought that much about it but she
> > > weighed 5000 lbs as she was when we first sailed her with500 lbs of
> > > ballast. Later we added more and finally as a schooner she must have
> > > weighed maybe 6500 lbs. She was build very light with tubing for
> > > stringers and almost no frames and using aluminum furniture that was
> > > built into the hull. She was mono coupe construction. She was
> > > intended for Chesapeake bay sailing and we added the ballast to get her
> > > a little heavier. When we first began sailing her she didn't even have
> > > a chine in the water. She was intended to carry a lot of sail for the
> > > light air of the Bay here and so was reefed early. We sailed her off
> > > the wind with main, mizzen, flat spinnaker and a Mizzen stay-sail. On
> > > my Blog "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> > > description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> > > was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> > > you busy for a while.:-)
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> >http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9
> > <http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9>
> >
> >
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> Eric,
> There is no doubt in my mind that Wolftrap was one of those perfect
> boats that show up now and the. That may be true but seems to imply
> that she was a boat that just happened which was not true.
> I had very specific reasons for building her and she met a great
> many of them. We sailed the Chesapeake bay and wanted to wonder the
> outer banks, the inland water way, Florida keys and wonder the Bahamas.
> I wanted a boat with no engine but I also wanted to build and sell one
> or two boats a year. Mr. Bolger convinced me that I would find very few
> buyers for an engine less sail boat so she had the smallest engine I
> could by that was diesel. Without an engine she needed to be able to
> sail enough to windward with the board up to sail into a shallow creek
> to anchor for the night.
> Because we were a metal working shop we could work well with
> aluminum. I was a schooner ketch enthusiast. I bought into the idea
> that I should try Bolgers rig. It was a rig I really did not understand
> or appreciate until I converted the boat to a schooner rig. I still
> like a schooner or ketch but would be inclined to go with one using
> Bolgers sprite rigs with the addition of a top sprite like my little
> Elver has so as to be able to quickly scandalize the sails for a quick
> reef of sorts.
> I am a firm believer that I personally can never go home. Wolf
> trap was a wonderful boat but I have been there, and done that, and she
> does not apply to my future needs.
> I am looking to a time when we will just want to be at home. A
> boat then needs to be one that we can moore close to shore in the
> shallows close to a small piece of water front land that I will buy.
> (Am now looking). I will be wanting to sail some but don't care if I
> have to motor sail to windward. I am getting slow so I don't care if the
> boat is slow. I want room onboard and since I will be wanting to anchor
> or moor close to land in shallow water she needs to be flat bottomed to
> rest comfortably on the bottom during the winter months when north west
> winds blows the water out of the creeks. I guess what I am really
> considering is a house boat that can sail some.
> Even Bolgers AS 29 with so much rocker may not serve this drying
> out consideration all that well.
> I am thinking I want a barge that can sail some.
> This is not really the list for this kind of boat to be
> discussed on. But when I started I was considering a modified AS 29. I
> was hoping some one had build a wider one for a similar purpose. Doug
>
> ``
> On 06/02/2012 09:18 PM, Eric wrote:
> >
> > Wolf Trap's cat yawl rig is handsome, but the schooner rig is so
> > beautifully married to the hull form that you would just have to go
> > slower in order to give people more time to admire Wolf Trap. (Picture
> > and line drawings here
> >http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search/label/Wolftrap) I
> > took notice of the bagged flat spinnaker and other large sail bag that
> > I assume carried a staysail to fly off the main mast. Your demonic
> > desire for ever more canvas brought a smile of appreciation to my face.
> >
> > Wolf Trap is a hard act to follow. Perhaps there is a possibility for
> > your last boat to be one you could love as much as you loved Wolf
> > Trap. I have a possibility to suggest which might interest others on
> > this list.
> >
> > In most cases making a good design wider on the same length spoils the
> > good of a design, but lengthening a good design on the same width
> > often produces an even better boat. It is a safer bet, in any case.
> >
> > Doug, from what you have said, I gather Wolf Trap had standing
> > headroom in the head under the hatch. The hatch being only a few
> > inches higher than the deck would mean that the flush deck would not
> > have to be raised very much to get standing headroom throughout the
> > cabin. Doing so would spoil Wolf Trap, but not if Wolf Trap was scaled
> > up. Stability increases with length as well as width, so it might be
> > possible to get a very nice boat by stretching the length and hight
> > dimensions, and perhaps not even needing to expand the width
> > dimension. Obviously aluminum would be ideal, but the same expansions
> > that are good for building in aluminum are directly transferable to
> > plywood. Phil Bolger was a master at drawing designs which wasted
> > little material. An enlarged Wolf Trap might be much more wasteful of
> > material, but some wasted MDO plywood might be easily tolerated. Mono
> > coupe construction could be had by epoxy fiberglass coating interior
> > and exterior and joining interior components one with the hull, as
> > with the original Wolf Trap. A different design, but a design perhaps
> > worth paying for. With schooner rig you would have an easy rig to
> > handle that would not require that you set enough sail to beat forty
> > footers.
> >
> > A significant advantage of a slightly enlarged plywood Wolf Trap over
> > a Trillo would be resale value. This would be an advantage over an AS
> > design as well. It would be a somewhat more difficult boat for an
> > amateur to build, but not for a skilled boat builder. So the cost
> > difference between a Trillo or AS design would simply be whatever
> > differences there were of displacement, and differences in
> > complication of interior, rig and auxilliary propulsion. It might not
> > amount to much, or at least be an economical trade off.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eric, Sorry I did not get back before now. Yes you are right about the
> > > weight of Wolftrap. Had not really thought that much about it but she
> > > weighed 5000 lbs as she was when we first sailed her with500 lbs of
> > > ballast. Later we added more and finally as a schooner she must have
> > > weighed maybe 6500 lbs. She was build very light with tubing for
> > > stringers and almost no frames and using aluminum furniture that was
> > > built into the hull. She was mono coupe construction. She was
> > > intended for Chesapeake bay sailing and we added the ballast to get her
> > > a little heavier. When we first began sailing her she didn't even have
> > > a chine in the water. She was intended to carry a lot of sail for the
> > > light air of the Bay here and so was reefed early. We sailed her off
> > > the wind with main, mizzen, flat spinnaker and a Mizzen stay-sail. On
> > > my Blog "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> > > description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> > > was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> > > you busy for a while.:-)
> > >
> > > Doug
> > >
> > >
> >http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9
> > <http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9>
> >
> >
>

On 06/02/2012 09:18 PM, Eric wrote:

 

Wolf Trap's cat yawl rig is handsome, but the schooner rig is so beautifully married to the hull form that you would just have to go slower in order to give people more time to admire Wolf Trap. (Picture and line drawings herehttp://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search/label/Wolftrap) I took notice of the bagged flat spinnaker and other large sail bag that I assume carried a staysail to fly off the main mast. Your demonic desire for ever more canvas brought a smile of appreciation to my face.

Wolf Trap is a hard act to follow. Perhaps there is a possibility for your last boat to be one you could love as much as you loved Wolf Trap. I have a possibility to suggest which might interest others on this list.

In most cases making a good design wider on the same length spoils the good of a design, but lengthening a good design on the same width often produces an even better boat. It is a safer bet, in any case.

Doug, from what you have said, I gather Wolf Trap had standing headroom in the head under the hatch. The hatch being only a few inches higher than the deck would mean that the flush deck would not have to be raised very much to get standing headroom throughout the cabin. Doing so would spoil Wolf Trap, but not if Wolf Trap was scaled up. Stability increases with length as well as width, so it might be possible to get a very nice boat by stretching the length and hight dimensions, and perhaps not even needing to expand the width dimension. Obviously aluminum would be ideal, but the same expansions that are good for building in aluminum are directly transferable to plywood. Phil Bolger was a master at drawing designs which wasted little material. An enlarged Wolf Trap might be much more wasteful of material, but some wasted MDO plywood might be easily tolerated. Mono coupe construction could be had by epoxy fiberglass coating interior and exterior and joining interior components one with the hull, as with the original Wolf Trap. A different design, but a design perhaps worth paying for. With schooner rig you would have an easy rig to handle that would not require that you set enough sail to beat forty footers.

A significant advantage of a slightly enlarged plywood Wolf Trap over a Trillo would be resale value. This would be an advantage over an AS design as well. It would be a somewhat more difficult boat for an amateur to build, but not for a skilled boat builder. So the cost difference between a Trillo or AS design would simply be whatever differences there were of displacement, and differences in complication of interior, rig and auxilliary propulsion. It might not amount to much, or at least be an economical trade off.

Eric

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:
>
> Eric, Sorry I did not get back before now. Yes you are right about the
> weight of Wolftrap. Had not really thought that much about it but she
> weighed 5000 lbs as she was when we first sailed her with500 lbs of
> ballast. Later we added more and finally as a schooner she must have
> weighed maybe 6500 lbs. She was build very light with tubing for
> stringers and almost no frames and using aluminum furniture that was
> built into the hull. She was mono coupe construction. She was
> intended for Chesapeake bay sailing and we added the ballast to get her
> a little heavier. When we first began sailing her she didn't even have
> a chine in the water. She was intended to carry a lot of sail for the
> light air of the Bay here and so was reefed early. We sailed her off
> the wind with main, mizzen, flat spinnaker and a Mizzen stay-sail. On
> my Blog "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> you busy for a while.:-)
>
> Doug
>
>http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> Eric, Sorry I did not get back before now. Yes you are right about the
> weight of Wolftrap. Had not really thought that much about it but she
> weighed 5000 lbs as she was when we first sailed her with500 lbs of
> ballast. Later we added more and finally as a schooner she must have
> weighed maybe 6500 lbs. She was build very light with tubing for
> stringers and almost no frames and using aluminum furniture that was
> built into the hull. She was mono coupe construction. She was
> intended for Chesapeake bay sailing and we added the ballast to get her
> a little heavier. When we first began sailing her she didn't even have
> a chine in the water. She was intended to carry a lot of sail for the
> light air of the Bay here and so was reefed early. We sailed her off
> the wind with main, mizzen, flat spinnaker and a Mizzen stay-sail. On
> my Blog "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> you busy for a while.:-)
>
> Doug
>
>http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> Eric, Sorry I did not get back before now. Yes you are right about the
> weight of Wolftrap. Had not really thought that much about it but she
> weighed 5000 lbs as she was when we first sailed her with500 lbs of
> ballast. Later we added more and finally as a schooner she must have
> weighed maybe 6500 lbs. She was build very light with tubing for
> stringers and almost no frames and using aluminum furniture that was
> built into the hull. She was mono coupe construction. She was
> intended for Chesapeake bay sailing and we added the ballast to get her
> a little heavier. When we first began sailing her she didn't even have
> a chine in the water. She was intended to carry a lot of sail for the
> light air of the Bay here and so was reefed early. We sailed her off
> the wind with main, mizzen, flat spinnaker and a Mizzen stay-sail. On
> my Blog "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> you busy for a while.:-)
>
> Doug

On 06/01/2012 03:10 PM, Kent wrote:

 

Is there any information about Wolftrap available on-line, besides this
blog (below)? Articles, diagrams, anything? Thanks -- Kent

> On my Blog
> "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> you busy for a while.:-)
> Doug
>
>http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9

> On my Blog
> "Sailboats Fair and Fine' there are lots of pictures, story and
> description. Click this link or copy and paste. I think I mentioned she
> was slower with the schooner rig and additional Ballast. This will keep
> you busy for a while.:-)
> Doug
>
>http://sailboatsfairandfine.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2006-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&updated-max=2007-01-01T00:00:00-05:00&max-results=9

On 05/30/2012 02:40 PM, Eric wrote:

 

Douglas, you started this thread because you are looking for a wider sharpie hull form than the AS-29. In this ranging discussion you have talked about Wolf Trap. I had not, before you said so, thought of Wolf Trap as a Sharpie. That statement by you created an itch which I scratched by re-reading Phil's description and lines drawing in Different Boats. Itch still not satisfied I searched this list for references to Wolf Trap. Interesting reading, the parts I found most interesting are pasted below. A lot of experience and wisdom. I am incredibly impressed that a thirty foot boat that displaces just 6,000 lbs but could set 800 square feet of sail, 500 square feet of working sail, and keep up with a forty foot boat. I'm impressed that Wolf Trap 30' x 10' weighs just 6000 lbs. My ROGUE is a considerably smaller boat at 26' x 7.5', enginless, I strove for lightness, and ROGUE still displaces about 6000 lbs. I could not find any photos of Wolf Trap. Are there any online? If not, could you post some? I am especially interested to see the schooner rig and compare it to the original. Also, what sort of 8 hour, 12 hour or 24 hour runs did Wolf Trap achieve on various points of sail? Wolf Trap is an extraorninary boat. I'll be very interested to see your criteria for your next boat, and better yet the boat itself, though I would have known more about that had I not missed (until today) your post about how the Trillo boat offers much of what you want, and what sort of rig you would want.

Eric

Re: [bolger] Re: pounding multihull vs pounding monohull?

 I built Phil Bolgers Wolftrap she was a little bit Sharpie a little bit Presto she had about 5 degrees of deadrise amidships and the rudder was fantastic.  WE sailed back from the bahamas to Lake worth Florida in a  North wind of about 18 knots and that against the Gulf stream was enough to raise 6 to 10 ft waves yet we carried full sail.  A friend was anchored inside the inlet and rowed over to talk to us and said "MY GOD Doug, that was the most impressive thing I have ever seen.  You guys coming in, in big seas throwing spray and white water all over the place. Beautiful!
Wolftrap's rudder had some blade forward of the rudder post and most aft. She had a plate on the top and bottom and one in the middle that stuck out about  for inches on each side.  So with maybe a 8 inches od f rudder in the water when running in big was we never lost steering control.  Even if the rudder cam out the boat had enough direction stability that she would not change direction very much or fats enough that the rudder was not back in the water sooner than needed. The boat had a 10" deep full length shallow keel so the rudder was a little deeper that the average sharpie.  Mr. Bolger did not make any ocean going claims for the boat because she had a really big cockpit but we sailed her more than her share in the Ocean and in some pretty bad conditions though we usually kept her within a couple days of a place to hide should something really bad be coming.   the cockpit size was helped by the transom having an 18x4 inch slot across the bottom to allow water to dump out. On occasion it also dumped in. So you could get a wet foot .  Because the cockpit was wide Phil put a crank Type till that you could pull over and lock in place just above your lap.  Getting in and out of the marina was a tight fit.  My boat was the only sailboat in the marina that could back out of the sliip and turn to port or starboard without jokying back and forth.  If the boat was great then the rudder was pure genious.  Since the centerboard whent up through the deck I built a weighted keel to drop down therough the boat to see how she acted in big seas. This basically turned her into a keel boat it was a fun exercise but did not changer her any, for the better and the keel was never installed used.  One of my old sailing friends stated that she was the best thought out boat he had ever seen.  I had to agree.  The guys at the yacht club called her that fast funny looking boat. They really, really did not  understand her rig or anything else about her. I have had people ask me all these years later what did you ever do with that fast little boat you had. She had developed a reputation.  I stuck out my chest as their is no pride greater than that of having a really great boat.                                                                         Doug

Re: [bolger] Re: Bolger Romp Spinnaker

Peter Kortlucke wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Peter - Bolger designed a number of boats with "single luff
> > spinnakers," which, somewhat modified, are now commonly known as
> > asymmetrical spinnakers. He was a bit ahead of the times . . . .
> >
> > Anyway, I suspect you just hoist and fly the chute like a jib (off
> the
> > wind, of course),
>
> >
> > Good luck and have fun, I envy your chance to sail on this boat!
> How
> > about posting your impressions on how she sails . . . and pics,
> too!
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> Hi Dave
>
> Well it was a bit breezy for spinnakers- 20-25 knots, double reef in
> the main and heeling 40 degrees.
>
> I've posted a few not very good photos at
>http://sports.webshots.com/album/569311503nspyVW
> <http://sports.webshots.com/album/569311503nspyVW>
>
> Top speed was just over 6 knots and she's not so weatherly but does
> have a pretty solid feel underfoot.
>
> Peter
>
>
I had one on my 30ft Wolftrap by Bolger. It had a spinnaker pole that
rested on on the front of the lower mast with a rounded pies and
cushioned to front of the mast. The spinnaker pole went forward and the
end was attached by a line to the end of the bowsprit. This would allow
me to tighten the luff of the spinnaker in so that the sail could be
used slightly to windward and was pretty effective that way. She was
sheeted straight back much as a jib would be. There were to more lines,
one on each side of the boat much like a jib sheet that by pulling on
say the starboard side the front of the sail and forward end of the
spinnaker pole could be hauled to the starboard side. If the main was on
the port side you were now sailing wing and wing. If you take down
wind you simply pulled the spinnaker to the part side and jibed the man
to again run wing on wing on the other tack. On a broad reach the sail
and spinnaker pole could could be set at any suitable angle. I often
sailed with main dumping into the spinnaker. Wolf trap carried 500
square ft of working sail
in main and mizzen with 300 in the flat spinnaker. The sail was a bit
of work to get set initially but once set you could carry it up to about
60 degrees off the wind so there were often sailing trips where we never
dropped the sail in a weeks sailing down the coast. With a boat that
weighed less than 7000 lbs and 800 sq ft of sail you can well imagine it
was exciting.
In later years we converted Wolf trap to a schooner rig to make her
a little easier to handle for my wife and I during the Northers that
blow up in the Bahamian winters. I set the mast and made the main such
that we could carry the flat spinnaker.above the cockpit. We were back
up to 800 square feet of sail and it was over the cockpit so I did not
have to scramble around on the bow. I could sail and set the spinnaker
at the same time single handing. Four guys in Marsh Harbor wanted to
know what the hell kind of boat she was when we raced from the West End
to Marsh Harbor and them sailing a 40 ft boat with them scrambling all
over her handling sails. The beat us by 9 minuets to cross the end of
the town dock. There boat was not a racing boat of any kind but then
neither was ours. I sailed about five miles out of my way because I was
going to Guana key and had to turn around an go back. My wife thought
I was crazy but I thought I might have a chance to beat them.
Any way it's a good sail no mater where you set it.
Doug

> Bruce Hallman wrote:
> >
> > > and in light of Bruce's comment- "IMO, headroom on a boat is needed
> > > about as much as headroom is needed in an automobile."
> >
> > I don't want to take credit for this being an original thought. I
> > recall that L. Francis Herreshoff wrote, (I think in his book Sensible
> > Cruising Designs) that he never sleeps, reads, or eats standing up so
> > he doesn't miss standing headroom. And, I recall reading. I forget
> > where (Annie Hill?), that a negative effect of standing headroom in
> > rough conditions is that you have further to get tossed around with
> > increased risk of injury.
> >
> >
> I would say standing head room or not is to a great degree what you
> are doing with the boat. We lived abord Bolgers Wolf trap for 18
> months. While we were traveling, sailing the Bahammas, Florida keys and
> messing around the carolina's and Georgia stahnding head room was never
> missed. Most time was spent outdoors anyway. We slept in the cabin
> part of the time on deck some and in the cockpit some. There was
> standing room for me 5' 7" in the head where it counts cause it's
nice
> to stand and pull your pants up.
> The problem began when we worked in the winter in the Chesapeake
> bay. Here you are trapped inside by cold weather snow and such. A
> winter of that gets to be a drag. We sold her and bought a Fantasia
35
> though I din't like the boat much with it's 7 ft of headroom in the
main
> salon and 6ft farther forward and the aft cabin we felt much less
> confineing. A boat with lots of headroom has the feel of a much
bigger
> boat though it may not be. Other than living aboard in colder
climates I
> very much like the boats that are lower on top the water.
> On Wolf trap we used a biminy and izenglass side curtains. ( only
> in the winter) With a kero heater out there, a few fairly warm
cloths,
> an enclosed cockpit can be great on a cold and even rainy day. The top
> needs to be plastic as any amount of rain will beat through a sunbrella
> one no matter how much you water proof them. Set under one long enough
> and the fine mist that comes through will eventually get you damp all
> over.
> Here on the Chesapeke in some places we have what is locally called
> sheep flies. The buggers bite! The must hve teeth like a tiger cause
> they hurt like hell when they bite. They are striped and look like a
> F18 with their swept back wings.
>
> Doug

Re: [bolger] AS29, LM2, WW and Similar Rudders

Jon, I had such a rudder on my boat Wolftrap . I sailed her In the
Chesapeake Bay up to about 6ft short chop quite a few years and only had
the rudder come out of the water one time. The boat had it's original
cat yawl rig and was over canvased at my request from Mr. Bolger with
the idea that I would reef sooner. Well I didn't, so the bottom plate
was already jacked up within about 8inches of the that plate coming out
of the water. I changed the rig to schooner later (my favorite rig) and
I 'm sure the big sail aft tended to drive the stern down some. Because
the boat had good direction stability she did not change course at all
when she broke out. If course the rudder was out of the water only seconds.
The rudder on Wolftrap was aluminum as was the whole boat and had 3
wings on it one just above water level, one below water at mid level and
one on the bottom. I sailed back from the Bahamas In what was said to be
15ft seas. I thought they were less maybe 8-10 ft. WE sailed into Lake
Worth on a broad reach throwing water all over the place. A good friend
said we were the most magnificent thing coming in there, he had ever
seen. Anyway I trusted her helm completely. When backing up under power
we had none of that thing of her backing to one side. The boat could be
steered in both directions. I liked being able to climb up the wings to
get on board. All In all I think it was the best rudder I ever had on a
boat. Doug

Doug,
Wow, good memories. And I'd say close enough for a "You built it"!
Thanks for the history. Imagine the history behind all of Phil's
Boats, so much of it we will loose over time.

Sincerely,
Gene T.

On 15 Dec, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Douglas Pollard wrote:

>
> I guess who built Wolftrap depends on who you talk to. Mine and my
> partners machine shop had the best Welder in town and we were running
> short on work for him. I suggested that we build a sailboat maybe
> one a
> year as fill in work. All agreed. I went to Mr. bolger and told him I
> liked Moccasin I believe the name was and would like to build a
> similar
> boat out of aluminum as that was the material we could work with
> best. I
> had owned a Sam Crocker 30 1/2 ft. raised deck ketch and liked the
> inside room of a raised deck. After some back and forth arguing
> between
> him and I we came to an agreement and he designed her. By the way he
> won
> most of the arguments he has a hard logic and it's hard to argue with.
> But there was one I could not abide with and that was an off center
> mizzen after about a week he came up with an excellent solution to put
> the mast on center and bring the tiller up through the transom and
> under
> the mast worked out great. I lofted her and the shops apprentice boys
> and I when we had time cut out a lot of her and our welder put her
> together. My partner who has painted several airplanes painted her
> with
> Emron. My wife a seamstress made all the cushions. When my wife and I
> decided to go spend a couple years in the Bahamas I wanted a split
> rig.
> I am only 5'7" and was about 140 lbs and I felt the big main might
> cause
> me a problem at sea so we went radical and made a schooner out of her.
> Using the same center of effort Mr. Bolger used for the original rig
> she
> handled beautifully but was a little slower. I used the flat spinnaker
> that is set forward in the pictures for a mizzenstaysail that I could
> easily handle from the cockpit. At 6000 lbs. she was carrying 800
> square
> feet of sail off the wind and was a screamer downwind with no handling
> vices what so ever. I have owned several boat and sailed on a lot
> more I
> don't hesitate to say she was the finest boat I ever sailed on. She is
> now owned By a Marine Biologist that works for Virginia marine
> institute
> and is much loved by him and his family. We sold her because we could
> not stand up in her and wanted to continue to live aboard for a lot
> more
> years. Fourteen years in all. Doug

Re: [bolger] Re: Work Skiff

My boat Wolf Trap had a box keel about 8" wide and 8" deep pointed on
both ends. The width of the keel had a straight run amidships ( no
taper there) also had a centerboard down through it. It worked fine but
it took about 400 lbs of ballast just to sink the keel. Seems like a 3"
wide keel would have carried the ballast the boat need and she could
have been several hundred pounds or more lighter. I never saw any
problem in it but just seemed a wast of ballast to me?? Thinking back I
put more ballast in than was needed anyway which likely didn't do
anything but slow her. If I had her today I would take some out and I
advised her present owner to do that. Bolger told me to sail her
without ballast and then ballast her until she felt good. I put in 1600
lbs and she felt pretty good. He then told me he was thinking more in
terms of 800 lb max. Live and learn!
Doug

Douglas Pollard wrote:
>
> In the early years of boat drag racing a fellow I grew up with decided
> to build a dragboat and I helped him some. the boat was vee bottomed
> forward and nearly flat across her stern. The first mistake we made was
> to put a third as much area in front of the rudder post as there was aft
> on the rudder itself, a balanced rudder we thought. This was thought to
> be a kind of rule of thumb at least for slower boats but a disaster at
> higher speed. She jerked the wheel out of my hand when I tried to turn
> her. My friend, her owner, was aft messing with the carburetors and was
> thrown over board. We fixed the rudder.
> She had no skeg and was really squirrelly running straight and
> absolutely dangerous in a turn. She would slide sideways and then dig
> in. This was at 40 miles per hour. It didn't matter much as drag
> racing had no turns to make and she turned alright at 10 mph.
> When he found out he couldn't keep up with the speed improvements
> out of his own pocket he gave up drag racing and wanted to play with her
> on the river. The turning there was a problem. He put a long skeg on her
> but it was too big we guessed. She still turned flat on the water and
> sometimes dug a chine in but was much less violent. One problem seemed
> to be that the engine needed to slide her stern sideways to turn and the
> engine lugged down slowing her. At least that was our thinking at the
> time.
> One of the more experienced racers told us she was tripping over
> her keel. A common problem with a large skeg he said. We shortened the
> keel lengthwise and she was better, we shortened even more until the
> skeg was only about a foot long and a couple of inches shallower and
> that seemed to cure the problem.
> My thinking with the box keel was that that kind of keel might do
> very well at hull speeds but cause turning problems when plaining at 18
> knots.
> There is a good possibility that there were hull shape problems
> as we designed the hull by the seat of our pants though I guess we had a
> fair idea of what she ought to look like. We may have been
> trying to cure a hull shape problem with a skeg!!
>
> Doug
> graeme19121984 wrote:
> >
> > > The boyancy of a box keel I believe causes a boat to have less
> > > stability.
> >
> > I don't know about that increased risk of tripping, could be, but agree
> > that similar to an unballasted dory the box-keel sharpies are initially
> > more tender than regular sharpies.
> >
> > In some examples the box keel shifts the sharpie displacement from the
> > middle out to the ends. This allows higher speed through preventing the
> > more burdensome type of hull bogging down in its own waves. The box
> > keel has a finer bow half-angle than the hull proper, and this too
> > reduces wavemaking. The finer bow will also be less slowed by oncoming
> > waves and chop.
> >
> > However, in most ways other than at the bow and stern, the addittion of
> > a box keel to a sharpie hull turns the hull effectively into a dory. It
> > mightn't look much like a dory in cross section, but it behaves like
> > one. Witness the Gloucester Yawl for example, the design where Bolger
> > published his sharpie flow theory. The Gloucester Yawl is, depending on
> > how you want to look at it, a narrow sharpie with added sponsons, or a
> > sharpie with a box keel! Key hull measurements correspond almost
> > exactly in all respects to those of the Long Dory. Proportionally the
> > measurments similarly correspond to those of the tender Gloucester
> > Gull, aka Light Dory! It can only have stability characteristics that
> > are similar - ie tenderness! (It stands to reason that with plumb upper
> > topsides it would be wetter though - and GY was reported as a wet ride!)
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>
><mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Douglas Pollard<Dougpol1@...>wrote:
> > >
> > > Seems to me like the box keel might increase the chances of tripping
> > > over a chine as the deeper keel and it's boyancy would seem to heel
> > the
> > > boat over in a turn and drop the keel in the water. The boyancy of a
> > > box keel I believe causes a boat to have less stability.
> > >
> > Doug
> >

On 5/30/2012 8:04 AM, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:

Forgive me, but in the spirit of DIY....$625 each is extraordinarily expensive for a hinged piece of sheet metal. Great idea, but if we can build boats, we can probably make these too.

 

You can probably accomplish the same thing (though less effectively) with weighted buckets...weighted so the bucket drops fast enough to dampen the next roll.

 

Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
Old Lyme, CT, USA
Le Claire, IA, USA
Scot McPherson | Linkedin

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, jhess314<j.hess@...>wrote:

 

Does anyone use Flopper-Stoppers to control rolling at anchor? Here are some commercial Flopper-Stoppers, though there are DIY-styles available too.

http://www.forespar.com/products/roll-stabilizer-flopper-stopper.shtml
http://www.primefabrication.com/products/roll_stabilizers.html
http://www.davisnet.com/marine/products/marine_product.asp?pnum=00352
http://www.magmaproducts.com/Products/Marine_Products/Stabilizer/body_stabilizer.html

>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks"<loosemoosefilmworks@...>wrote:
>
> > To what extent did Loose Moose II (and other AS-types) roll at anchor or when downwind sailing, compared to more typical cruising keeled monohulls?
> >
>
> Well as it happens I'm at anchor in a fairly rolly anchorage on a CAL 34 at this very moment and we're rolling...

>
> >
> > Hi Peter - Bolger designed a number of boats with "single luff
> > spinnakers," which, somewhat modified, are now commonly known as
> > asymmetrical spinnakers. He was a bit ahead of the times . . . .
> >
> > Anyway, I suspect you just hoist and fly the chute like a jib (off
> the
> > wind, of course),
>
> >
> > Good luck and have fun, I envy your chance to sail on this boat!
> How
> > about posting your impressions on how she sails . . . and pics,
> too!
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
> Hi Dave
>
> Well it was a bit breezy for spinnakers- 20-25 knots, double reef in
> the main and heeling 40 degrees.
>
> I've posted a few not very good photos at
>http://sports.webshots.com/album/569311503nspyVW
> <http://sports.webshots.com/album/569311503nspyVW>
>
> Top speed was just over 6 knots and she's not so weatherly but does
> have a pretty solid feel underfoot.
>
> Peter
>
>

> Bruce Hallman wrote:
> >
> > > and in light of Bruce's comment- "IMO, headroom on a boat is needed
> > > about as much as headroom is needed in an automobile."
> >
> > I don't want to take credit for this being an original thought. I
> > recall that L. Francis Herreshoff wrote, (I think in his book Sensible
> > Cruising Designs) that he never sleeps, reads, or eats standing up so
> > he doesn't miss standing headroom. And, I recall reading. I forget
> > where (Annie Hill?), that a negative effect of standing headroom in
> > rough conditions is that you have further to get tossed around with
> > increased risk of injury.
> >
> >
> I would say standing head room or not is to a great degree what you
> are doing with the boat. We lived abord Bolgers Wolf trap for 18
> months. While we were traveling, sailing the Bahammas, Florida keys and
> messing around the carolina's and Georgia stahnding head room was never
> missed. Most time was spent outdoors anyway. We slept in the cabin
> part of the time on deck some and in the cockpit some. There was
> standing room for me 5' 7" in the head where it counts cause it's

> to stand and pull your pants up.
> The problem began when we worked in the winter in the Chesapeake
> bay. Here you are trapped inside by cold weather snow and such. A
> winter of that gets to be a drag. We sold her and bought a Fantasia

> though I din't like the boat much with it's 7 ft of headroom in the

> salon and 6ft farther forward and the aft cabin we felt much less
> confineing. A boat with lots of headroom has the feel of a much

> boat though it may not be. Other than living aboard in colder

> very much like the boats that are lower on top the water.
> On Wolf trap we used a biminy and izenglass side curtains. ( only
> in the winter) With a kero heater out there, a few fairly warm

> an enclosed cockpit can be great on a cold and even rainy day. The top
> needs to be plastic as any amount of rain will beat through a sunbrella
> one no matter how much you water proof them. Set under one long enough
> and the fine mist that comes through will eventually get you damp all
> over.
> Here on the Chesapeke in some places we have what is locally called
> sheep flies. The buggers bite! The must hve teeth like a tiger cause
> they hurt like hell when they bite. They are striped and look like a
> F18 with their swept back wings.
>
> Doug

On 15 Dec, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Douglas Pollard wrote:

>
> I guess who built Wolftrap depends on who you talk to. Mine and my
> partners machine shop had the best Welder in town and we were running
> short on work for him. I suggested that we build a sailboat maybe
> one a
> year as fill in work. All agreed. I went to Mr. bolger and told him I
> liked Moccasin I believe the name was and would like to build a
> similar
> boat out of aluminum as that was the material we could work with
> best. I
> had owned a Sam Crocker 30 1/2 ft. raised deck ketch and liked the
> inside room of a raised deck. After some back and forth arguing
> between
> him and I we came to an agreement and he designed her. By the way he
> won
> most of the arguments he has a hard logic and it's hard to argue with.
> But there was one I could not abide with and that was an off center
> mizzen after about a week he came up with an excellent solution to put
> the mast on center and bring the tiller up through the transom and
> under
> the mast worked out great. I lofted her and the shops apprentice boys
> and I when we had time cut out a lot of her and our welder put her
> together. My partner who has painted several airplanes painted her
> with
> Emron. My wife a seamstress made all the cushions. When my wife and I
> decided to go spend a couple years in the Bahamas I wanted a split
> rig.
> I am only 5'7" and was about 140 lbs and I felt the big main might
> cause
> me a problem at sea so we went radical and made a schooner out of her.
> Using the same center of effort Mr. Bolger used for the original rig
> she
> handled beautifully but was a little slower. I used the flat spinnaker
> that is set forward in the pictures for a mizzenstaysail that I could
> easily handle from the cockpit. At 6000 lbs. she was carrying 800
> square
> feet of sail off the wind and was a screamer downwind with no handling
> vices what so ever. I have owned several boat and sailed on a lot
> more I
> don't hesitate to say she was the finest boat I ever sailed on. She is
> now owned By a Marine Biologist that works for Virginia marine
> institute
> and is much loved by him and his family. We sold her because we could
> not stand up in her and wanted to continue to live aboard for a lot
> more
> years. Fourteen years in all. Doug



Re: [bolger] Re: Work Skiff

My boat Wolf Trap had a box keel about 8" wide and 8" deep pointed on
both ends. The width of the keel had a straight run amidships ( no
taper there) also had a centerboard down through it. It worked fine but
it took about 400 lbs of ballast just to sink the keel. Seems like a 3"
wide keel would have carried the ballast the boat need and she could
have been several hundred pounds or more lighter. I never saw any
problem in it but just seemed a wast of ballast to me?? Thinking back I
put more ballast in than was needed anyway which likely didn't do
anything but slow her. If I had her today I would take some out and I
advised her present owner to do that. Bolger told me to sail her
without ballast and then ballast her until she felt good. I put in 1600
lbs and she felt pretty good. He then told me he was thinking more in
terms of 800 lb max. Live and learn!
Doug


Douglas Pollard wrote:
>
> In the early years of boat drag racing a fellow I grew up with decided
> to build a dragboat and I helped him some. the boat was vee bottomed
> forward and nearly flat across her stern. The first mistake we made was
> to put a third as much area in front of the rudder post as there was aft
> on the rudder itself, a balanced rudder we thought. This was thought to
> be a kind of rule of thumb at least for slower boats but a disaster at
> higher speed. She jerked the wheel out of my hand when I tried to turn
> her. My friend, her owner, was aft messing with the carburetors and was
> thrown over board. We fixed the rudder.
> She had no skeg and was really squirrelly running straight and
> absolutely dangerous in a turn. She would slide sideways and then dig
> in. This was at 40 miles per hour. It didn't matter much as drag
> racing had no turns to make and she turned alright at 10 mph.
> When he found out he couldn't keep up with the speed improvements
> out of his own pocket he gave up drag racing and wanted to play with her
> on the river. The turning there was a problem. He put a long skeg on her
> but it was too big we guessed. She still turned flat on the water and
> sometimes dug a chine in but was much less violent. One problem seemed
> to be that the engine needed to slide her stern sideways to turn and the
> engine lugged down slowing her. At least that was our thinking at the
> time.
> One of the more experienced racers told us she was tripping over
> her keel. A common problem with a large skeg he said. We shortened the
> keel lengthwise and she was better, we shortened even more until the
> skeg was only about a foot long and a couple of inches shallower and
> that seemed to cure the problem.
> My thinking with the box keel was that that kind of keel might do
> very well at hull speeds but cause turning problems when plaining at 18
> knots.
> There is a good possibility that there were hull shape problems
> as we designed the hull by the seat of our pants though I guess we had a
> fair idea of what she ought to look like. We may have been
> trying to cure a hull shape problem with a skeg!!
>
> Doug
> graeme19121984 wrote:
> >
> > > The boyancy of a box keel I believe causes a boat to have less
> > > stability.
> >
> > I don't know about that increased risk of tripping, could be, but agree
> > that similar to an unballasted dory the box-keel sharpies are initially
> > more tender than regular sharpies.
> >
> > In some examples the box keel shifts the sharpie displacement from the
> > middle out to the ends. This allows higher speed through preventing the
> > more burdensome type of hull bogging down in its own waves. The box
> > keel has a finer bow half-angle than the hull proper, and this too
> > reduces wavemaking. The finer bow will also be less slowed by oncoming
> > waves and chop.
> >
> > However, in most ways other than at the bow and stern, the addittion of
> > a box keel to a sharpie hull turns the hull effectively into a dory. It
> > mightn't look much like a dory in cross section, but it behaves like
> > one. Witness the Gloucester Yawl for example, the design where Bolger
> > published his sharpie flow theory. The Gloucester Yawl is, depending on
> > how you want to look at it, a narrow sharpie with added sponsons, or a
> > sharpie with a box keel! Key hull measurements correspond almost
> > exactly in all respects to those of the Long Dory. Proportionally the
> > measurments similarly correspond to those of the tender Gloucester
> > Gull, aka Light Dory! It can only have stability characteristics that
> > are similar - ie tenderness! (It stands to reason that with plumb upper
> > topsides it would be wetter though - and GY was reported as a wet ride!)
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> > --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > Douglas Pollard <Dougpol1@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Seems to me like the box keel might increase the chances of tripping
> > > over a chine as the deeper keel and it's boyancy would seem to heel
> > the
> > > boat over in a turn and drop the keel in the water. The boyancy of a
> > > box keel I believe causes a boat to have less stability.
> > >
> > Doug
> >

On 05/30/2012 11:04 AM, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:

Forgive me, but in the spirit of DIY....$625 each is extraordinarily expensive for a hinged piece of sheet metal. Great idea, but if we can build boats, we can probably make these too.

You can probably accomplish the same thing (though less effectively) with weighted buckets...weighted so the bucket drops fast enough to dampen the next roll.

Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
Old Lyme, CT, USA
Le Claire, IA, USA
Scot McPherson | Linkedin

I've seen pics of buckets with a large hole in the bottom covered by a hinged rubber flap with weights in the bottom to help it sink faster. Going down the flap bends up to let water to pass though then bends down and closes the hole as the bucket goes up.

I'd take the wire handle off and replace with a strong rope handle with large knots to keep it from pulling out. A three rope bridle should work fine.

Mike Allison... (North of Kansas City Mo. USA)

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:00 AM, jhess314<j.hess@...>wrote:

Does anyone use Flopper-Stoppers to control rolling at anchor? Here are some commercial Flopper-Stoppers, though there are DIY-styles available too.

http://www.forespar.com/products/roll-stabilizer-flopper-stopper.shtml
http://www.primefabrication.com/products/roll_stabilizers.html
http://www.davisnet.com/marine/products/marine_product.asp?pnum=00352
http://www.magmaproducts.com/Products/Marine_Products/Stabilizer/body_stabilizer.html

>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>
> > To what extent did Loose Moose II (and other AS-types) roll at anchor or when downwind sailing, compared to more typical cruising keeled monohulls?
> >
>
> Well as it happens I'm at anchor in a fairly rolly anchorage on a CAL 34 at this very moment and we're rolling...

>
>
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>
> > To what extent did Loose Moose II (and other AS-types) roll at anchor or when downwind sailing, compared to more typical cruising keeled monohulls?
> >
>
> Well as it happens I'm at anchor in a fairly rolly anchorage on a CAL 34 at this very moment and we're rolling...

>
> Bob (and other AS owners),
>
> To what extent did Loose Moose II (and other AS-types) roll at anchor or when downwind sailing, compared to more typical cruising keeled monohulls?
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>
>
> Eric... Just a note but the Loose Moose 2/AS-39 design is about the same beam as the AS-29 at under eight feet.
>
> While we cruised and lived on LM2 we had a lot of folks ask us how we could live in such a narrow boat. Fact is, of all the negative comments about our boat the narrowness was right up there with the flat front. We heard LM2 referred to as a tunnel boat as well as that "coffin" boat more times than we could count.
>
> Of course, when folks dropped in for a visit they were mostly very surprised at how roomy and comfortable LM2 was and a lot of people with larger boats than ours would comment that we actually had more and better living space than they did.
>
> Case in point, when we were in the Canaries we'd have movie night on LM2 and have as many as a dozen people over for popcorn and a movie... Good friends of ours on a Moody always commented that the most they could have over on their boat (45 feet and beamy) was six and that was stretching it.
>
> Anyway, there is a big difference between a well designed interior accommodation and what people might expect based on what a boat looks like in an exterior view...
>
> Just saying...
>
> Bob
>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
>http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
>http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>
>
> Eric... Just a note but the Loose Moose 2/AS-39 design is about the same beam as the AS-29 at under eight feet.
>
> While we cruised and lived on LM2 we had a lot of folks ask us how we could live in such a narrow boat. Fact is, of all the negative comments about our boat the narrowness was right up there with the flat front. We heard LM2 referred to as a tunnel boat as well as that "coffin" boat more times than we could count.
>
> Of course, when folks dropped in for a visit they were mostly very surprised at how roomy and comfortable LM2 was and a lot of people with larger boats than ours would comment that we actually had more and better living space than they did.
>
> Case in point, when we were in the Canaries we'd have movie night on LM2 and have as many as a dozen people over for popcorn and a movie... Good friends of ours on a Moody always commented that the most they could have over on their boat (45 feet and beamy) was six and that was stretching it.
>
> Anyway, there is a big difference between a well designed interior accommodation and what people might expect based on what a boat looks like in an exterior view...
>
> Just saying...
>
> Bob
>http://boatbits.blogspot.com/
>http://fishingundersail.blogspot.com/
>http://islandgourmand.blogspot.com/
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> I started this thread because I am looking for a wider boat of a sharpie
> or barge type. The discussion has lead all over the place. This is what
> usually happens in discutions. If this list is not for discussion then
> it's just and advertisement. It's not my list but if it were mine I
> would let the thread play out and die. The good news is the thread is
> about sharpies and as best I can tell it takes nothing away from Mr.
> Bolger and for the most part only serves to finally prove the
> understanding he had on such boats. Doug
>
>
> On 05/24/2012 01:19 PM, Mike Allison wrote:
> >
> > >Who cares, that's not topical, and it could in some cases be
> > disrespectful.
> >
> > >If you don't like Bolger designs, the answer is quite simple. Don't
> > use them, but also have some
> > >respect and don't bash them here on this group. Go found your own
> > haters group if you wish or
> > > find another list that favors the designs you like.
> >
> > Very well put Scot!
> >
> > Mike Allison... (North of Kansas City Mo. USA)
> >
> >
>

On 05/24/2012 04:59 PM, Tom Pee wrote:

 

Good sharpies are long, so for given displacement they still are fast because of waterline length while still remaining is displacement mode.

From:Scot Mc Pherson<scot.mcpherson@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thursday, May 24, 2012 1:47 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

that's my point exactly, which means it's just going to sit down. Shallower does not equal faster UNTIL you start planing. Until then you are still just a displacement hull, and the faster you go, the more drag you create. What's more important is how the water moves around your hull, not only how much.

 

 

 

Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
Old Lyme, CT, USA
Le Claire, IA, USA
Scot McPherson | Linkedin

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:

 

Sharpies are not about planing.  Their narrower hulls have higher hull speeds just as catamarans are.        Doug

On 05/24/2012 01:01 PM, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:

 

Not everything can be a canoe....Until you get to planing speeds, almost all designs will sit deeper in the water under speed. In fact I have buried the bow of a sailboat or two underway because I was going to fast....of course the boat was loaded too heavy, but the boat didn't sink until she was moving too fast and sat down. Dropped the sheet and she popped back up. A shallower boat will plane sooner, but then are we talking about sailing or sailboarding?

 

 

Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
Old Lyme, CT, USA
Le Claire, IA, USA
Scot McPherson | Linkedin

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM, c.ruzer<c.ruzer@...>wrote:

 

Hard to swallow? Regurgitation? You very nearly had me spit the dummy and post to that, Doug! You mentioned narrow but not shallow.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:
>

> Well Nutty may have some ideas that are hard to swallow but he is
> absolutely right about some things. The hardest thing he has had to do
> is to try to convince others that a certain shaped bow will create no
> bow way. He is right as far as any bow wave you can see is concerned and
> a boat that doesn't try to exceed hull speed by having to climb over
> it's bow wave is fast and narrow and is sea worthy..

On 05/24/2012 02:03 PM, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:

Douglas,

Certainly, and apologize for hijacking your thread. Inquiry and discussion are great as I hoped I had conveyed. There are just too many "don't do it phil's way" comments abounding on the list, and I felt Suzanne's frustration through the computer screen (assuming I read her mood right).

I hope you find the design that will allow you and your wife to enjoy building and sailing for quite a few more years. It's all any of us want I think.

Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
Old Lyme, CT, USA
Le Claire, IA, USA
Scot McPherson | Linkedin

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:

I started this thread because I am looking for a wider boat of a sharpie or barge type. The discussion has lead all over the place.  This is what usually happens in discutions. If this list is not for discussion then it's just and advertisement.  It's not my list but if it were mine I would let the thread play out and die.  The good news is the thread is about sharpies and as best I can tell it takes nothing away from Mr. Bolger and for the most part only serves to finally prove the  understanding he had on such boats.       Doug

On 05/24/2012 01:19 PM, Mike Allison wrote:

>Who cares, that's not topical, and it could in some cases be
disrespectful.

>If you don't like Bolger designs, the answer is quite simple. Don't
use them, but also have some
>respect and don't bash them here on this group. Go found your own
haters group if you wish or
> find another list that favors the designs you like.

Very well put Scot!

Mike Allison... (North of Kansas City Mo. USA)

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:

I started this thread because I am looking for a wider boat of a sharpie or barge type. The discussion has lead all over the place.  This is what usually happens in discutions. If this list is not for discussion then it's just and advertisement.  It's not my list but if it were mine I would let the thread play out and die.  The good news is the thread is about sharpies and as best I can tell it takes nothing away from Mr. Bolger and for the most part only serves to finally prove the  understanding he had on such boats.       Doug

On 05/24/2012 01:19 PM, Mike Allison wrote:

>Who cares, that's not topical, and it could in some cases be
disrespectful.

>If you don't like Bolger designs, the answer is quite simple. Don't
use them, but also have some
>respect and don't bash them here on this group. Go found your own
haters group if you wish or
> find another list that favors the designs you like.

Very well put Scot!

Mike Allison... (North of Kansas City Mo. USA)

On 05/24/2012 01:19 PM, Mike Allison wrote:

 

>Who cares, that's not topical, and it could in some cases be
disrespectful.

>If you don't like Bolger designs, the answer is quite simple. Don't
use them, but also have some
>respect and don't bash them here on this group. Go found your own
haters group if you wish or
> find another list that favors the designs you like.

Very well put Scot!

Mike Allison... (North of Kansas City Mo. USA)

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:

Sharpies are not about planing.  Their narrower hulls have higher hull speeds just as catamarans are.        Doug

On 05/24/2012 01:01 PM, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:

Not everything can be a canoe....Until you get to planing speeds, almost all designs will sit deeper in the water under speed. In fact I have buried the bow of a sailboat or two underway because I was going to fast....of course the boat was loaded too heavy, but the boat didn't sink until she was moving too fast and sat down. Dropped the sheet and she popped back up. A shallower boat will plane sooner, but then are we talking about sailing or sailboarding?

Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
Old Lyme, CT, USA
Le Claire, IA, USA
Scot McPherson | Linkedin

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM, c.ruzer<c.ruzer@...>wrote:

Hard to swallow? Regurgitation? You very nearly had me spit the dummy and post to that, Doug! You mentioned narrow but not shallow.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:
>

> Well Nutty may have some ideas that are hard to swallow but he is
> absolutely right about some things. The hardest thing he has had to do
> is to try to convince others that a certain shaped bow will create no
> bow way. He is right as far as any bow wave you can see is concerned and
> a boat that doesn't try to exceed hull speed by having to climb over
> it's bow wave is fast and narrow and is sea worthy..

On 05/24/2012 01:01 PM, Scot Mc Pherson wrote:

Not everything can be a canoe....Until you get to planing speeds, almost all designs will sit deeper in the water under speed. In fact I have buried the bow of a sailboat or two underway because I was going to fast....of course the boat was loaded too heavy, but the boat didn't sink until she was moving too fast and sat down. Dropped the sheet and she popped back up. A shallower boat will plane sooner, but then are we talking about sailing or sailboarding?

Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
Old Lyme, CT, USA
Le Claire, IA, USA
Scot McPherson | Linkedin

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM, c.ruzer<c.ruzer@...>wrote:

Hard to swallow? Regurgitation? You very nearly had me spit the dummy and post to that, Doug! You mentioned narrow but not shallow.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:
>

> Well Nutty may have some ideas that are hard to swallow but he is
> absolutely right about some things. The hardest thing he has had to do
> is to try to convince others that a certain shaped bow will create no
> bow way. He is right as far as any bow wave you can see is concerned and
> a boat that doesn't try to exceed hull speed by having to climb over
> it's bow wave is fast and narrow and is sea worthy..

>Who cares, that's not topical, and it could in some cases be

>If you don't like Bolger designs, the answer is quite simple. Don't

>respect and don't bash them here on this group. Go found your own

> find another list that favors the designs you like.

> All of this was discussed in Mait Edey's article in Woodenboat too.
> Mait seemed pretty satisfied with his submerged bow,

> but needed to add a large skeg.

> I might add that other respected designers (Munroe-who designed
> several before and after Presto, Colvin and Beebe) designed
> sharpies with (slightly) submerged bows with no ill effects.

> And there is no doubt that a sharpie rudder in a heavy following
> sea is a miserable thing, and possibly unmanageable in a larger
> boat.

> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [bolger] Re: pounding multihull vs pounding monohull?

> Drop the sharpie bow in the water and get the crank steering, and a
> tiller hard in the mouth. Mitigate all that by adding a (too) larger
> rudder and longer tiller lever arm like Mr Morejohn does, but go slower.
> Why? Add some vee to the bow? How far back before it's the bottom?

> Bow pounding? From a 2inch! thick bottom? If you look, you'll see Mr
> Morejohn's forefoot is actually out of the water in waves half of the
> time... oh, when he noticed the steering was cr4p was it? ... etc.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> "jhess314" <j.hess@> wrote:
> >
> > Bob,
> > You certainly are one of the resident experts on building and sailing
> Advanced Sharpies. I understand how even a modest amount of heel will
> turn their flat bow into a quasi-vee-bottom, and thus reduce/eliminate
> pounding. But from the comfort of my armchair it seemed that it would be
> relatively easy to drop the forefoot into the water (al la Chris
> Morejohn), and add some vee to the bow, with the result being a boat (a
> stabilized monohull) which could sail flat into the wind with a
> tolerable amount of pounding, yet still have the many construction and
> interior benefits of an AS.
>

On 05/24/2012 12:49 PM, c.ruzer wrote:

 

Hard to swallow? Regurgitation? You very nearly had me spit the dummy and post to that, Doug! You mentioned narrow but not shallow.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>wrote:
>
> Well Nutty may have some ideas that are hard to swallow but he is
> absolutely right about some things. The hardest thing he has had to do
> is to try to convince others that a certain shaped bow will create no
> bow way. He is right as far as any bow wave you can see is concerned and
> a boat that doesn't try to exceed hull speed by having to climb over
> it's bow wave is fast and narrow and is sea worthy..

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM, c.ruzer<c.ruzer@...>wrote:

Hard to swallow? Regurgitation? You very nearly had me spit the dummy and post to that, Doug! You mentioned narrow but not shallow.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>

> Well Nutty may have some ideas that are hard to swallow but he is
> absolutely right about some things. The hardest thing he has had to do
> is to try to convince others that a certain shaped bow will create no
> bow way. He is right as far as any bow wave you can see is concerned and
> a boat that doesn't try to exceed hull speed by having to climb over
> it's bow wave is fast and narrow and is sea worthy..

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...> wrote:
>
> Well Nutty may have some ideas that are hard to swallow but he is
> absolutely right about some things. The hardest thing he has had to do
> is to try to convince others that a certain shaped bow will create no
> bow way. He is right as far as any bow wave you can see is concerned and
> a boat that doesn't try to exceed hull speed by having to climb over
> it's bow wave is fast and narrow and is sea worthy..

On 05/24/2012 11:18 AM, Connor, Patrick wrote:

 

All of this was discussed in Mait Edey's article in Woodenboat too. Mait seemed pretty satisfied with his submerged bow, but needed to add a large skeg. I might add that other respected designers (Munroe-who designed several before and after Presto, Colvin and Beebe) designed sharpies with (slightly) submerged bows with no ill effects. And there is no doubt that a sharpie rudder in a heavy following sea is a miserable thing, and possibly unmanageable in a larger boat.

 

Patrick A. Connor

Executive Vice President & Manager,

National Services Group

Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

141 East Town Street, Suite 101

Columbus, Ohio 43215-5412

Phone: 614-341-1900 Ext 13502

Mobile: 614-208-9308

Facsimile: 614-341-1903

 

---

From:bolger@yahoogroups.com[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Ofc.ruzer
Sent:Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:36 AM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject:[bolger] Re: pounding multihull vs pounding monohull?

 

Drop the sharpie bow in the water and get the crank steering, and a tiller hard in the mouth. Mitigate all that by adding a (too) larger rudder and longer tiller lever arm like Mr Morejohn does, but go slower. Why? Add some vee to the bow? How far back before it's the bottom?

Bow pounding? From a 2inch! thick bottom? If you look, you'll see Mr Morejohn's forefoot is actually out of the water in waves half of the time... oh, when he noticed the steering was cr4p was it? ... etc.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314"<j.hess@...>wrote:
>
> Bob,
> You certainly are one of the resident experts on building and sailing Advanced Sharpies. I understand how even a modest amount of heel will turn their flat bow into a quasi-vee-bottom, and thus reduce/eliminate pounding. But from the comfort of my armchair it seemed that it would be relatively easy to drop the forefoot into the water (al la Chris Morejohn), and add some vee to the bow, with the result being a boat (a stabilized monohull) which could sail flat into the wind with a tolerable amount of pounding, yet still have the many construction and interior benefits of an AS.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@...> wrote:
>
> Cruzer, can you provide a reference to Morejohn's comments on Hogfish performance?
> Thanks,
> John

----- Original Message -----

From:mkriley48

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:46 PM

Subject:[bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

suzanne,
Whats with all the "Ad hominem" arguments.
In case you want to know more, I would point you to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

mike riley

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
> Mr. Pee (another witty 'magic' name ??),
> what's it with your urge to opine on matters so often so far from apparent conceptual comprehension ?
> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Pee
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29
>
>
>
>
> As39 is 1' taller and 10' longer than as29, different layout but conceptually the same. Even though they are brilliant designs, the 29 is to short lengthwise and 39 to high for sharpie proportions.
>
>
> From: Scot Mc Pherson <scot.mcpherson@...>
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29
>
>
>
>
> I'd take a look at the AS 39 first, someone built one, I think it's called "Wizard".
>
>
> Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
> Old Lyme, CT, USA
> Le Claire, IA, USA
> Scot McPherson | Linkedin
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:
>
>
> How bout taking the AS29 and extending to 47'. Keep the headroom at galley deckhouse and hull height the same rather than increasing it a foot like on loosemoose.
>
> Work out the sail power and you win in all ways.
>
>
>
> From: Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29
>
>
>
>
> Well Nutty may have some ideas that are hard to swallow but he is absolutely right about some things. The hardest thing he has had to do is to try to convince others that a certain shaped bow will create no bow way. He is right as far as any bow wave you can see is concerned and a boat that doesn't try to exceed hull speed by having to climb over it's bow wave is fast and narrow and is sea worthy.. There were many of them in the 1930's. WE raced against others from Baltimore to Tolchester and down to Annapolis They often sailed on a beam reach at 11 and 13 knots. They were narrow with a 5 to 1 ratio. My dads boat was 35 ft. Our next door neighbors boat was 40 ft. x6ft wide and extrememly fast. Our boat had a sprit bugeye rig and was faster to windward than the neighbors stayed more or less Skipjack rig. Both boats had to use hikeing boards when reaching top speeds. My father call the boats poor mans log canoes. I know how to build a fast sharpy but they are not practical as cruising boats as is the AS 29 because the old sharpies were too narrow for anything but racing or fishing which is what they were most used for. AS I see it a narrow sharpie with a hikeing board is the same thing as a proa. They both have a k hiking board abut the proa has an ama that is actually out or f the water so there is no differenc execep the proa has an even narrower hull.
> There is a reason the sharpies appear to have no bow wave. Is the a narrow boat with a long bow that goes from 3/4 the way aft to the stem has si uch a narrow angle on each side lays right beside the boat and does not apear to be moving outward away from the hull as the hull widens but the wave is really moving outward. In the stern as the boat narrows the wave then looks to be moving away from the boat. On such boats the sternwave and the bow way become one and the same. Sail one of those sharpies alongside a more moderm sloop and you don't see a lot of difference in speed until the modern sloop reaches hull speed then the sharpie pulls away. As a boy we laughed when someone talked about the yacht club boats being racing boats. We out ran the fastest of them on a regular basis.
> We built our boats to formula back then because along the bay everyone was a boat builder to some degree and we knew how to build but we ned the formula to get a good boat. So we argued abot who's formula was the fastest.
> Now I am wanting a slow boat and thats a different story. I am think in 5 knots in a reasonable strong breeze and 5 knots in a blow. Nothing more. Doug
>
>
>
> On 05/23/2012 09:01 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
>
>
>
> There's the word. Nutty. Uh-oh - kinda argumentum ad infinitum sorta like stealth pia Godwin Law Turing testing butter wouldn't melt trolling boat forum nemesis. The end.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@> wrote:
> >
> > If correct 10cm would be about 4", which might help then again it might be insignificant. There's a fellow over at yahoo boatdesigns named nuttyboats who did actual tests and says the flat bottom and square sides is most seaworthy design but forgot about him mentioning rocker.Â
> > Â
> > Maybe no rocker just doesnt look "proper" and thats why its not tried often, information is lacking but with people thinking "outside the box" such as trilos, elvers, and buehlers pilgrim (almost no rocker and ends completely immersed), it might work but as with all designs there is give and take with characteristics and flat bottom is just one, from others experiences it works and is probably not even a negative.
> > Â
> > Even with Bolgers Anhinga which came closest to whats being proposed, the data is almost completely lost.
> > Â
> > Thats why all the knows about sharpies such as being long, not to high (windage), double ends for balance should all be incorporated to reduce the risks of trying the unknownsÂ
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
> Mr. Pee (another witty 'magic' name ??),
> what's it with your urge to opine on matters so often so far from apparent conceptual comprehension ?
> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Pee
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29
>
>
>
>
> As39 is 1' taller and 10' longer than as29, different layout but conceptually the same. Even though they are brilliant designs, the 29 is to short lengthwise and 39 to high for sharpie proportions.
>
>
> From: Scot Mc Pherson <scot.mcpherson@...>
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29
>
>
>
>
> I'd take a look at the AS 39 first, someone built one, I think it's called "Wizard".
>
>
> Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
> Old Lyme, CT, USA
> Le Claire, IA, USA
> Scot McPherson | Linkedin
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:
>
>
> How bout taking the AS29 and extending to 47'. Keep the headroom at galley deckhouse and hull height the same rather than increasing it a foot like on loosemoose.
>
> Work out the sail power and you win in all ways.
>
>
>
> From: Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29
>
>
>
>
> Well Nutty may have some ideas that are hard to swallow but he is absolutely right about some things. The hardest thing he has had to do is to try to convince others that a certain shaped bow will create no bow way. He is right as far as any bow wave you can see is concerned and a boat that doesn't try to exceed hull speed by having to climb over it's bow wave is fast and narrow and is sea worthy.. There were many of them in the 1930's. WE raced against others from Baltimore to Tolchester and down to Annapolis They often sailed on a beam reach at 11 and 13 knots. They were narrow with a 5 to 1 ratio. My dads boat was 35 ft. Our next door neighbors boat was 40 ft. x6ft wide and extrememly fast. Our boat had a sprit bugeye rig and was faster to windward than the neighbors stayed more or less Skipjack rig. Both boats had to use hikeing boards when reaching top speeds. My father call the boats poor mans log canoes. I know how to build a fast sharpy but they are not practical as cruising boats as is the AS 29 because the old sharpies were too narrow for anything but racing or fishing which is what they were most used for. AS I see it a narrow sharpie with a hikeing board is the same thing as a proa. They both have a k hiking board abut the proa has an ama that is actually out or f the water so there is no differenc execep the proa has an even narrower hull.
> There is a reason the sharpies appear to have no bow wave. Is the a narrow boat with a long bow that goes from 3/4 the way aft to the stem has si uch a narrow angle on each side lays right beside the boat and does not apear to be moving outward away from the hull as the hull widens but the wave is really moving outward. In the stern as the boat narrows the wave then looks to be moving away from the boat. On such boats the sternwave and the bow way become one and the same. Sail one of those sharpies alongside a more moderm sloop and you don't see a lot of difference in speed until the modern sloop reaches hull speed then the sharpie pulls away. As a boy we laughed when someone talked about the yacht club boats being racing boats. We out ran the fastest of them on a regular basis.
> We built our boats to formula back then because along the bay everyone was a boat builder to some degree and we knew how to build but we ned the formula to get a good boat. So we argued abot who's formula was the fastest.
> Now I am wanting a slow boat and thats a different story. I am think in 5 knots in a reasonable strong breeze and 5 knots in a blow. Nothing more. Doug
>
>
>
> On 05/23/2012 09:01 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
>
>
>
> There's the word. Nutty. Uh-oh - kinda argumentum ad infinitum sorta like stealth pia Godwin Law Turing testing butter wouldn't melt trolling boat forum nemesis. The end.
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@> wrote:
> >
> > If correct 10cm would be about 4", which might help then again it might be insignificant. There's a fellow over at yahoo boatdesigns named nuttyboats who did actual tests and says the flat bottom and square sides is most seaworthy design but forgot about him mentioning rocker.Â
> > Â
> > Maybe no rocker just doesnt look "proper" and thats why its not tried often, information is lacking but with people thinking "outside the box" such as trilos, elvers, and buehlers pilgrim (almost no rocker and ends completely immersed), it might work but as with all designs there is give and take with characteristics and flat bottom is just one, from others experiences it works and is probably not even a negative.
> > Â
> > Even with Bolgers Anhinga which came closest to whats being proposed, the data is almost completely lost.
> > Â
> > Thats why all the knows about sharpies such as being long, not to high (windage), double ends for balance should all be incorporated to reduce the risks of trying the unknownsÂ
>

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:44 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

As39 is 1' taller and 10' longer than as29, different layout but conceptually the same.  Even though they are brilliant designs, the 29 is to short lengthwise and 39 to high for sharpie proportions. 

From:Scot Mc Pherson <scot.mcpherson@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:13 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

I'd take a look at the AS 39 first, someone built one, I think it's called "Wizard".

 

Scot McPherson, PMP CISSP MCSA
Old Lyme, CT, USA
Le Claire, IA, USA
Scot McPherson | Linkedin

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tom Pee<tompee77@...>wrote:

 

How bout taking the AS29 and extending to 47'.  Keep the headroom at galley deckhouse and hull height the same rather than increasing it a foot like on loosemoose.

 

Work out the sail power and you win in all ways.

 

From:Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:37 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

Well Nutty may have some ideas  that are hard to swallow but he is absolutely right about some things.  The hardest thing he has had to do is to try to convince others that a certain shaped bow will create no bow way. He is right as far as any bow wave you can see is concerned and a boat that doesn't try to exceed hull speed by having to climb over it's bow wave is fast and narrow and is sea worthy..   There were many of them in the 1930's.  WE raced against others from Baltimore to Tolchester and down to Annapolis They often sailed on a beam reach at 11 and 13 knots. They were narrow with a 5 to 1 ratio.  My dads boat was 35 ft.  Our next door neighbors boat was 40 ft. x6ft wide and extrememly fast.  Our boat had a sprit bugeye rig and was faster to windward than the neighbors stayed more or less Skipjack rig.  Both boats had to use hikeing boards when reaching top speeds.  My father call the boats poor mans log canoes.  I know how to build a fast sharpy but they are not practical as cruising boats as is the AS 29 because the  old sharpies were too narrow for anything but racing or fishing which is what they were most used for.  AS I see it a narrow sharpie with a hikeing board is the same thing as a proa.  They both have a k hiking board abut the proa has an ama that is actually out or f the water so there is no differenc execep the proa has an even narrower hull.
   There is a reason the sharpies appear to have no bow wave.   Is the a narrow boat with a long bow that goes from 3/4 the way aft to the stem has si uch a narrow angle on each side lays right beside the boat and does not apear to be moving outward away from the hull as the hull widens but the wave is really moving outward. In the stern as the boat narrows the wave then looks to be moving away from the boat.  On such boats the sternwave and the bow way become one and the same.  Sail one of those sharpies alongside a more moderm sloop and you don't see a lot of difference in speed until the modern sloop reaches hull speed then the sharpie pulls away.  As a boy we laughed when someone talked about the yacht club boats being racing boats. We out ran the fastest of them on a regular basis.
   We built our boats to formula back then because along the bay everyone was a boat builder to some degree and we knew how to build but we ned the formula to get a good boat.  So we argued abot who's formula was the fastest. 
    Now I am wanting a slow boat and thats a different story. I am think in 5 knots in a reasonable strong breeze and 5 knots in a blow.    Nothing more.                                   Doug



 On 05/23/2012 09:01 AM, c.ruzer wrote:

 

There's the word. Nutty. Uh-oh - kinda argumentum ad infinitum sorta like stealth pia Godwin Law Turing testing butter wouldn't melt trolling boat forum nemesis. The end.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee<tompee77@...>wrote:
>
> If correct 10cm would be about 4", which might help then again it might be insignificant.  There's a fellow over at yahoo boatdesigns named nuttyboats who did actual tests and says the flat bottom and square sides is most seaworthy design but forgot about him mentioning rocker. 
>  
> Maybe no rocker just doesnt look "proper" and thats why its not tried often, information is lacking but with people thinking "outside the box" such as trilos, elvers, and buehlers pilgrim (almost no rocker and ends completely immersed), it might work but as with all designs there is give and take with characteristics and flat bottom is just one, from others experiences it works and is probably not even a negative.
>  
> Even with Bolgers Anhinga which came closest to whats being proposed, the data is almost completely lost.
>  
> Thats why all the knows about sharpies such as being long, not to high (windage), double ends for balance should all be incorporated to reduce the risks of trying the  unknowns 

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
>
> Old ground here. Statements made by Chris Morejohn, himself, about his Hogfish type sharpie performance simply don't stack up. They don't bear examination. In fact his own statements and reported observations strongly support the case he argues against: ie. Phil Bolger's!
>
> Sharpie performance is impaired by immersion of the forefoot, as Mr Morejohn found but apparently is unable to believe. Talk about blind fundamentalist cognitive dissonance, whew!
>
> "These craft can be made to sail tolerably well (as practically anything can, which is why boat designing is a relaxed profession)..."
> wrote PCB. - At bottom, and about his bows and rudders, Mr Morejohn should kick back and relax some.
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@> wrote:
>
> > triloboat sounds good but you have to get a v point rather than the blunt bow if thinking of anything beyond river ways, in bwaom, phil mentions the lack of sailing ability of scows and this is directly related to the front end of boat.
> > An Idaho sailing type vessel would be just as easy to build and as long as the cockpit is above WL and solid hatches are constructed.  Furtermore, keep beam to length well above 4 to 1 especially if thinking about the trilos.
>
> > Think the easiest way to build would be an absolutely flat bottom with the shape of anhinga only higher b -l ratio.  Build right on flat ground and sides and deck.  Move to dock, epoxy coat and antifouling while and sling and drop in water.  Chris Morejohn is adamant that the forefoot should be imersed in water, you would loose a little tacking ability and gain tracking.
>
> > Boat would be perfectly balanced , with long length and pointy ends great efficiency would be achieved.  Draft could be water ever you carrying would matter a biy.
>
> ________________________________
> > From: Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@>
>
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:56 PM
>
> >  No, no, no, guys there is nothing in the trimarans. catamearans or proa's that could  interest an old couple like us.  A slow wide boat with lots of walking around room seems more suitable to us.  I am 78 years old and am likely to be walking around on board with a walker in another ten years. I would likely be better off with a junk rig later but <
>

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Tom Pee<tompee77@...>wrote:

How bout taking the AS29 and extending to 47'.  Keep the headroom at galley deckhouse and hull height the same rather than increasing it a foot like on loosemoose.

Work out the sail power and you win in all ways.

From:Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:37 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

Well Nutty may have some ideas  that are hard to swallow but he is absolutely right about some things.  The hardest thing he has had to do is to try to convince others that a certain shaped bow will create no bow way. He is right as far as any bow wave you can see is concerned and a boat that doesn't try to exceed hull speed by having to climb over it's bow wave is fast and narrow and is sea worthy..   There were many of them in the 1930's.  WE raced against others from Baltimore to Tolchester and down to Annapolis They often sailed on a beam reach at 11 and 13 knots. They were narrow with a 5 to 1 ratio.  My dads boat was 35 ft.  Our next door neighbors boat was 40 ft. x6ft wide and extrememly fast.  Our boat had a sprit bugeye rig and was faster to windward than the neighbors stayed more or less Skipjack rig.  Both boats had to use hikeing boards when reaching top speeds.  My father call the boats poor mans log canoes.  I know how to build a fast sharpy but they are not practical as cruising boats as is the AS 29 because the  old sharpies were too narrow for anything but racing or fishing which is what they were most used for.  AS I see it a narrow sharpie with a hikeing board is the same thing as a proa.  They both have a k hiking board abut the proa has an ama that is actually out or f the water so there is no differenc execep the proa has an even narrower hull.
There is a reason the sharpies appear to have no bow wave.   Is the a narrow boat with a long bow that goes from 3/4 the way aft to the stem has si uch a narrow angle on each side lays right beside the boat and does not apear to be moving outward away from the hull as the hull widens but the wave is really moving outward. In the stern as the boat narrows the wave then looks to be moving away from the boat.  On such boats the sternwave and the bow way become one and the same.  Sail one of those sharpies alongside a more moderm sloop and you don't see a lot of difference in speed until the modern sloop reaches hull speed then the sharpie pulls away.  As a boy we laughed when someone talked about the yacht club boats being racing boats. We out ran the fastest of them on a regular basis.
We built our boats to formula back then because along the bay everyone was a boat builder to some degree and we knew how to build but we ned the formula to get a good boat.  So we argued abot who's formula was the fastest.
Now I am wanting a slow boat and thats a different story. I am think in 5 knots in a reasonable strong breeze and 5 knots in a blow.    Nothing more.                                   Doug



On 05/23/2012 09:01 AM, c.ruzer wrote:

There's the word. Nutty. Uh-oh - kinda argumentum ad infinitum sorta like stealth pia Godwin Law Turing testing butter wouldn't melt trolling boat forum nemesis. The end.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee<tompee77@...>wrote:
>
> If correct 10cm would be about 4", which might help then again it might be insignificant.  There's a fellow over at yahoo boatdesigns named nuttyboats who did actual tests and says the flat bottom and square sides is most seaworthy design but forgot about him mentioning rocker.Â
> Â
> Maybe no rocker just doesnt look "proper" and thats why its not tried often, information is lacking but with people thinking "outside the box" such as trilos, elvers, and buehlers pilgrim (almost no rocker and ends completely immersed), it might work but as with all designs there is give and take with characteristics and flat bottom is just one, from others experiences it works and is probably not even a negative.
> Â
> Even with Bolgers Anhinga which came closest to whats being proposed, the data is almost completely lost.
> Â
> Thats why all the knows about sharpies such as being long, not to high (windage), double ends for balance should all be incorporated to reduce the risks of trying the  unknownsÂ

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Tom Pee<tompee77@...>wrote:

Tend to agree an elevated forefoot would perform better for certain aspects, but is it enough to say -good sharpies should never have immersed forefoots?  Atkin also did some flat bottom no rocker sailboats.  Danes in the ridiculous Perius Magnuis even crossed the Atlantic and put many miles in thier flat bottom. Most large ships use it as well and probable reason for the slight rounded chines is strength.

If triloboats can be made to decently sail, then a better bottom shape should also work.

What kind of remarks has Morejohn said to make you believe he will continue blindly in blissful ingnorance concerning bow shape?

BTW, whats the final concensus about Anhinga's sailing ability with immersed stern and raised forefoot?

From:c.ruzer <c.ruzer@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:11 AM
Subject:[bolger] Re: wider as 29

Old ground here. Statements made by Chris Morejohn, himself, about his Hogfish type sharpie performance simply don't stack up. They don't bear examination. In fact his own statements and reported observations strongly support the case he argues against: ie. Phil Bolger's!

Sharpie performance is impaired by immersion of the forefoot, as Mr Morejohn found but apparently is unable to believe. Talk about blind fundamentalist cognitive dissonance, whew!

"These craft can be made to sail tolerably well (as practically anything can, which is why boat designing is a relaxed profession)..."
wrote PCB. - At bottom, and about his bows and rudders, Mr Morejohn should kick back and relax some.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:

> triloboat sounds good but you have to get a v point rather than the blunt bow if thinking of anything beyond river ways, in bwaom, phil mentions the lack of sailing ability of scows and this is directly related to the front end of boat.
> An Idaho sailing type vessel would be just as easy to build and as long as the cockpit is above WL and solid hatches are constructed.  Furtermore, keep beam to length well above 4 to 1 especially if thinking about the trilos.

> Think the easiest way to build would be an absolutely flat bottom with the shape of anhinga only higher b -l ratio.  Build right on flat ground and sides and deck.  Move to dock, epoxy coat and antifouling while and sling and drop in water.  Chris Morejohn is adamant that the forefoot should be imersed in water, you would loose a little tacking ability and gain tracking.

> Boat would be perfectly balanced , with long length and pointy ends great efficiency would be achieved.  Draft could be water ever you carrying would matter a biy.

________________________________
> From: Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>

> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:56 PM

>  No, no, no, guys there is nothing in the trimarans. catamearans or proa's that could  interest an old couple like us.  A slow wide boat with lots of walking around room seems more suitable to us.  I am 78 years old and am likely to be walking around on board with a walker in another ten years. I would likely be better off with a junk rig later but <

 

There's the word. Nutty. Uh-oh - kinda argumentum ad infinitum sorta like stealth pia Godwin Law Turing testing butter wouldn't melt trolling boat forum nemesis. The end.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee<tompee77@...>wrote:
>
> If correct 10cm would be about 4", which might help then again it might be insignificant.  There's a fellow over at yahoo boatdesigns named nuttyboats who did actual tests and says the flat bottom and square sides is most seaworthy design but forgot about him mentioning rocker. 
>  
> Maybe no rocker just doesnt look "proper" and thats why its not tried often, information is lacking but with people thinking "outside the box" such as trilos, elvers, and buehlers pilgrim (almost no rocker and ends completely immersed), it might work but as with all designs there is give and take with characteristics and flat bottom is just one, from others experiences it works and is probably not even a negative.
>  
> Even with Bolgers Anhinga which came closest to whats being proposed, the data is almost completely lost.
>  
> Thats why all the knows about sharpies such as being long, not to high (windage), double ends for balance should all be incorporated to reduce the risks of trying the  unknowns 

> even Phil adopted the topaz type forefoot later in his career to
> deal with this

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:
>
> Both ways will work,
> Â
> With Phils AS designs you get better tacking, possibly more seaworthy as the bow is then able to overcome wave action, better light air performance.
> Â
> With Chris you get better tracking for long distance cruising, more waterline for higher speed, less slapping and maybe even less turbulence since the bow is immersed and not fighting with the waves above, even Phil adopted the topaz type forefoot later in his career to deal with this.Â

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, tom s <tdsoren@...> wrote:
>
> didn't I read somewhere that Phil determined that a 10cm radius chine alleviated the eddy issue, explaining the lack of rocker on Dovekies?

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Eric" <eric14850@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply Bob. What I really was trying to get at was how expensive cats and tris can be because of all the hulls, and constraints upon interiors, and how relatively inexpensive a Bolger sharpie of much larger size could be, and could also be expected to out perform the multi-hull.
>
> I realize the 125' schooner was designed for day sailing, but a captain, cook, and "boy" would be enough crew to take folks out for a week or two at a time. The hull has room enough for spacious accommodations and all the toys the passengers might like to play with. It actually is so much bigger and commodious that it would not be a fair comparison, but it was the only hull I could reference for comparison.
>
> I read an article about Jim Brown's son. Brown's son is a designer of proas and is a designer Phil Bolger commented positively about. The author spoke about judging one of Browns proas in terms of knots per dollar. It is one useful means of evaluating the worth of a boat.
>
> In engineering, and in boat design, it is not simply what is possible, but what are the priorities. Cost being a constraint can lead to as much innovation as cost being no object. Cost constraint influenced a good deal of Phil Bolger's work, and his innovations are, and will continue to influence boat design.
>
> Eric
>
>
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Bob, you have actual knowledge of the charter numbers game, not my blind stab guessing at building, maintenance/operating costs. Care to venture a guess about the costs related to Grand Oasis vs Pari-Mutuel Schooner.
> > > Eric
> >
> > Hi Eric
> >
> > Not quite possible on the two boats mentioned... Phil'schooner project (always dear to my heart)falls into the realm of daysailing which is a completely different animal that Grand Oasis which is a term charter boat and very much at the low end of the spectrum at that.
> >
> > That said, A boats like Grand Oasis provides an all inclusive charter this includes pretty much everything for an eight day/seven night charter. I know a lot of boats whose liquor/wine/beer costs for a six pack charter will seriously knock your socks off. Grand Oasis is really a bad example as they are way past their sell by date and no longer provide the sort of charter most of our clients demand.
> >
> > Since this is really past the purview of Bolger stuff if you have any other questions that checking out our website does not answer (http://www.paradiseconnections.com) drop me an email and I'll be happy to answer your questions offlist.
> >
> > Bob

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:
>
> If correct 10cm would be about 4", which might help then again it might be insignificant.  There's a fellow over at yahoo boatdesigns named nuttyboats who did actual tests and says the flat bottom and square sides is most seaworthy design but forgot about him mentioning rocker.Â
> Â
> Maybe no rocker just doesnt look "proper" and thats why its not tried often, information is lacking but with people thinking "outside the box" such as trilos, elvers, and buehlers pilgrim (almost no rocker and ends completely immersed), it might work but as with all designs there is give and take with characteristics and flat bottom is just one, from others experiences it works and is probably not even a negative.
> Â
> Even with Bolgers Anhinga which came closest to whats being proposed, the data is almost completely lost.
> Â
> Thats why all the knows about sharpies such as being long, not to high (windage), double ends for balance should all be incorporated to reduce the risks of trying the  unknownsÂ

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:

> Maybe he also knows something about sharpies.

> ________________________________
> From: "philbolger@..." <philbolger@...>
> To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

> I know who he is...  Why are we discussing his
> insights on "bow"-profiles in a forum around the work covering decades of
> development and well beyond 110 designs of sharpies and
> -derivatives ?

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@...> wrote:

> Chris Morejohn is a designer, builder, and sailor of the Hogfish family of cruising sharpies, most recently Hogfish Maximus.
>
>http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/hogfish-maximus-44ish-sailing-sharpie-34759-5.html#post458720
>
>http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/hogfish-maximus-44ish-sailing-sharpie-34759-5.html#post459122
>
>http://chrismorejohn.blogspot.com/2009/06/hogfish-maximus.html
>
> John
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@...> wrote:
>
> Bob,
> You certainly are one of the resident experts on building and sailing Advanced Sharpies. I understand how even a modest amount of heel will turn their flat bow into a quasi-vee-bottom, and thus reduce/eliminate pounding. But from the comfort of my armchair it seemed that it would be relatively easy to drop the forefoot into the water (al la Chris Morejohn), and add some vee to the bow, with the result being a boat (a stabilized monohull) which could sail flat into the wind with a tolerable amount of pounding, yet still have the many construction and interior benefits of an AS.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:

> triloboat sounds good but you have to get a v point rather than the blunt bow if thinking of anything beyond river ways, in bwaom, phil mentions the lack of sailing ability of scows and this is directly related to the front end of boat.
> An Idaho sailing type vessel would be just as easy to build and as long as the cockpit is above WL and solid hatches are constructed.  Furtermore, keep beam to length well above 4 to 1 especially if thinking about the trilos.

> Think the easiest way to build would be an absolutely flat bottom with the shape of anhinga only higher b -l ratio.  Build right on flat ground and sides and deck.  Move to dock, epoxy coat and antifouling while and sling and drop in water.  Chris Morejohn is adamant that the forefoot should be imersed in water, you would loose a little tacking ability and gain tracking.

> Boat would be perfectly balanced , with long length and pointy ends great efficiency would be achieved.  Draft could be water ever you carrying would matter a biy.

________________________________
> From: Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>

> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:56 PM

>  No, no, no, guys there is nothing in the trimarans. catamearans or proa's that could  interest an old couple like us.  A slow wide boat with lots of walking around room seems more suitable to us.  I am 78 years old and am likely to be walking around on board with a walker in another ten years. I would likely be better off with a junk rig later but <

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, tom s <tdsoren@...> wrote:
>
> Kent,
>
> you just perfectly described a "Harry proa". Robe Denny is building this exact concept in many sizes, including a charter vessel called "blind date" that take blind people sailing. He has a web site and a discussion group on Yahoo.
>
> Tom
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On May 16, 2012, at 5:08 PM, Kent <kent@...> wrote:
>
> > Proas are an interesting solution, but the lack of stability on one side
> > bothers me. However, I've got a concept in my head for an asymmetrical
> > catamaran. It has a "living hull" that's wide and tall, and holds the
> > accomodation. Then there's a "power hull" that's narrow and low, and
> > carries the rudder, centerboard, and auxiliary motor. The masts might
> > also be stepped on the power hull, although the stability might be
> > better if they are stepped in between. The math on this is too much for
> > me to figure in my head; aside from stability issues, there are concerns
> > about the underwater performance of different-shaped hulls. But I think
> > it might be workable?

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>
>
> > Bob, you have actual knowledge of the charter numbers game, not my blind stab guessing at building, maintenance/operating costs. Care to venture a guess about the costs related to Grand Oasis vs Pari-Mutuel Schooner.
> > Eric
>
> Hi Eric
>
> Not quite possible on the two boats mentioned... Phil'schooner project (always dear to my heart)falls into the realm of daysailing which is a completely different animal that Grand Oasis which is a term charter boat and very much at the low end of the spectrum at that.
>
> That said, A boats like Grand Oasis provides an all inclusive charter this includes pretty much everything for an eight day/seven night charter. I know a lot of boats whose liquor/wine/beer costs for a six pack charter will seriously knock your socks off. Grand Oasis is really a bad example as they are way past their sell by date and no longer provide the sort of charter most of our clients demand.
>
> Since this is really past the purview of Bolger stuff if you have any other questions that checking out our website does not answer (http://www.paradiseconnections.com) drop me an email and I'll be happy to answer your questions offlist.
>
> Bob
>

> Bob, you have actual knowledge of the charter numbers game, not my blind stab guessing at building, maintenance/operating costs. Care to venture a guess about the costs related to Grand Oasis vs Pari-Mutuel Schooner.
> Eric

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@...> wrote:
>
> Grand Oasis is a very old Piver era charter tri... Not very wide as trimaran designs go. We happen to know it very well as it has been in the charter fleet here in the USVI/BVI forever. Performance of old designs like Grand Oasis is akin to same length monohulls and for Grand Oasis somewhat less as multihulls simply do not do well with the weight demands of charter.
>
> Bob
>
> (who also happens to own a charter yacht business in the Virgin Islands)
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Kent <kent@> wrote:
> >
> > This is an interesting concept. I've sometimes wondered why multihulls
> > are always so narrow. If you built one wider, you would lose some
> > speed, but you'd gain a lot in space and comfort for cruising or living
> > aboard; and you'd keep the other advantages of multihulls, such as
> > shallow draft and stability.
> >
> > Does anyone know of any existing boats of this type: "fat multihull" or
> > "outrigger monohull?"
> >
> > Thanks -K.
>
> Grand Oasis is a condo-trimaran. It appears to be wider than most tris, but narrower than most monos.
>http://www.sailgrandoasis.com/
>http://www.sailgrandoasis.com/grandoasis.aspx
>http://1cyc.com/catamaran/grandoasis/
>
> Someone here gave the monohull-to-trimaran idea a try. The jury is out on how well it worked.
>http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/multihulls/trimaran-made-monohull-39412.html#post481797
>
> This trimaran has a fairly wide hull. It was eventually acquired by the one-legged sailor Tristan Jones, who renamed it Outward Leg, and sailed it from California, thru the Panama Canal, to England, thru Europe via rivers and canals to the Black Sea, then into the Med.
>http://www.surteesmultihulls.com/11m-re-rightable-trimaran
>
> Here's reference to a open sharpie converted to a trimaran. This is an archived version with text only. What I've saved on my computer had a few photos. It seems they sailed in the Texas 200 with it.
>http://cruising.sailboatowners.com/archive3/index.cgi/md/read/id/127515/sbj/aransas-bay-san-jose-island-couple-pics-of-us/
>

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Friday, May 18, 2012 2:39 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: pounding multihull vs pounding monohull?

 

Catamarans should have at least 1' of absolute bridge clearance every 10' of beam, with no protrusions of any kind. Space between hulls and deck is good.

 

Hull beams should be min. of 12-1 and the more the better, would try to get 15-1 as all it requires is extending hulls.

 

Total length should not be more than 2-1 beam, but no less than 2.5-1.0 as this will cause wave to much wave interference between hulls.

 

Mast should be located at 30-35% aft with forward empty or trampoline, about 2' solid deck forward of mast for workingsails.

 

Most successful modern cats have forefoot just touching the water as this is more critical than on monohulls to avoid pitchpoling.  Higher is probably even better for safety and forward wave slap is much more reduced than on a monohull.

 

Individual hull heights 10% of hull lengths, along with narrow hulls, this leaves room mostly for berths, storage, dg-cb, and maybe small portion of hull with raised deck for head & shower.

 

Any cats less than 50' the enclosed area height limited to 5' which provides comfortable seating and room to move easily.

 

Sharpie-square type hulls will work well due to narrow hulls.

 

Keeping within these parameters the cats can be used as originally intended-lightweight, simple cruising lifestyle, easy repairs, and with retractable boards-rudders displacement of 9-14" even with 50 footers, no bad behaviors so should sail very safely and with a fantastic sea kindly motion.

 

 

 

 

 

From:Eric <eric14850@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Friday, May 18, 2012 1:15 PM
Subject:[bolger] Re: pounding multihull vs pounding monohull?

 

Folks, trust that the multihull folks have spent fifty years working out good solutions and eliminating the bad. Piever lost his life to working out design parameters. Some of the early designs had wider bottoms.

I'm a skier. I ski moguls (pumps). Spread your feet wide apart in the moguls and they will throw you around unmercifully. Attempting to ski stiff legged would immediately capsize you.

A multihull is the same. Fat hulls are like stiff legs. I am lead to believe that even the better multihulls are skittery and jerky in their motions, the negative to speed and deck space of multihulls.

Others have worked out the compromises. This group does not have to return to design questions of the 1960s.

Eric

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@...> wrote:
>
> Bob,
> Can you explain why a non-fine multihull would pound, but a non-fine monohull will not pound? If you took a monohull that didn't pound, and stuck some amas on it, would it start pounding?
>
> I understand why low bridgedecks will cause pounding.
> John
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@> wrote:
> >
> > In my experience multihulls of a non-fine nature pound horribly...
> >
> > Bob
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@...> wrote:
>
> Bob,
> Can you explain why a non-fine multihull would pound, but a non-fine monohull will not pound? If you took a monohull that didn't pound, and stuck some amas on it, would it start pounding?
>
> I understand why low bridgedecks will cause pounding.
> John
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@> wrote:
> >
> > In my experience multihulls of a non-fine nature pound horribly...
> >
> > Bob
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "jhess314" <j.hess@...> wrote:
>
> Bob,
> Can you explain why a non-fine multihull would pound, but a non-fine monohull will not pound? If you took a monohull that didn't pound, and stuck some amas on it, would it start pounding?
>
> I understand why low bridgedecks will cause pounding.
> John
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "loosemoosefilmworks" <loosemoosefilmworks@> wrote:
> >
> > In my experience multihulls of a non-fine nature pound horribly...
> >
> > Bob
>

On 17/05/2012, at 6:22 AM, Kent <kent@...> wrote:

> This is an interesting concept. I've sometimes wondered why multihulls
> are always so narrow. If you built one wider, you would lose some
> speed, but you'd gain a lot in space and comfort for cruising or living
> aboard; and you'd keep the other advantages of multihulls, such as
> shallow draft and stability.
>
> Does anyone know of any existing boats of this type: "fat multihull" or
> "outrigger monohull?"
>
> Thanks -K.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Doug, here's a crazy idea.
>>
>> Build your 10'-wide square-sided, flat-bottomed AS-29 (or AS-34 or whatever), leaving off the ballast. Then add a pair of Kurt Hughes retractable amas.
>>
>>http://www.multihulldesigns.com/designs_stock/d38tri.html
>>
>> I like Eric's suggestion of free-standing mast(s) and cambered junk sail(s). Maybe you could even build it out of aluminum, like Wolftrap. Low maintenance and tough bottom...
>>
>> What you would have is not a trimaran, but a stabilized monohull. The advantages are:
>>
>> flat(ish) sailing
>> no rolling at anchor/mooring
>> no rolling when sailing downwind
>> can use narrow slip (15'?) compared to typical cat or tri
>> can use typical travel hoist compared to cat or tri
>>
>> Because main hull is wide, compared to a trimaran, you won't have the speed that tris are known for. But your payload and interior comfort would be much greater.
>>
>> John
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

>
> This is an interesting concept. I've sometimes wondered why multihulls
> are always so narrow. If you built one wider, you would lose some
> speed, but you'd gain a lot in space and comfort for cruising or living
> aboard; and you'd keep the other advantages of multihulls, such as
> shallow draft and stability.
>
> Does anyone know of any existing boats of this type: "fat multihull" or
> "outrigger monohull?"
>
> Thanks -K.

>
> Bob,
> You certainly are one of the resident experts on building and sailing Advanced Sharpies. I understand how even a modest amount of heel will turn their flat bow into a quasi-vee-bottom, and thus reduce/eliminate pounding. But from the comfort of my armchair it seemed that it would be relatively easy to drop the forefoot into the water (al la Chris Morejohn), and add some vee to the bow, with the result being a boat (a stabilized monohull) which could sail flat into the wind with a tolerable amount of pounding, yet still have the many construction and interior benefits of an AS.
>

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:31 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

The unequal pressure is a theory ( a good one) but at the same time those that drift away from it also perform well.

The old time sharpies didnt have equal bottom and sides and performed admirably.

 

You dont need the boat to heel especially when the wind is light.

 

From:tom s <tdsoren@...>
To:"bolger@yahoogroups.com" <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:53 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

didn't I read somewhere that Phil determined that a 10cm radius chine alleviated the eddy issue, explaining the lack of rocker on Dovekies?

square chined boats need the rocker, with the added benefit of less wetted surface when the wind is too light to get the boat to heel?

how well do these rocker less square chined boats steer with the unequal pressure from different curvature on the forefoot?

Tom
Sent from my iPad

On May 17, 2012, at 10:44 AM, <philbolger@...> wrote:

 

If you want to go on and crankily argue against Bolger on how many issues, go do it elsewhere...
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:40 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

Whether you go with scow front end and sweep up or a point and tail in, you still loose just about the same amount of usable space, but the pointy end will be a better performer.

 

Reread my last post and its pretty sloppy, but basically its an Anhinga  with a completely flat bottom and say 8' x 40'.

 

Think you can use three staggered layers of 3/8" for everything, glue the bottom layers then the 90 degree sides, rip plies into 16" pieces and put them diagonally at the chines (three layers), this will stiffen it tremedously without tranverse frames,  they will rather be longitudinal frames.  Add the deck and do the same thing with 12" ripped pieces, use rebar idea for ballast.

 

Flat just like the trilos, but rather than upsweeping the ends you bring them to a point.  Built on the ground and just before being put in the water and still on the sling, the bottom is epoxied and antifouled. Displacement and draft dont matter as its balanced either way.

 

Chris Morejohn is also a sharpie designer, hogfishes are his boats, read about him in Ruell Parkers book.  He's put on many miles with his sharpie and actually lives on them, he says Phil's forefoot designs are unnecessary.  If so why not just have a completely flat bottom as the Dovekies and triloboats, they have been proven through experience to work satisfactorily.

 

Loosemoose, wouldnt consider the as39 a scow, almost but no cigar.  Eventhough the schuyt is technically not a scow the frontend works the same way bashing into waves rather than cutting them.  LM2 probably was slim enough and the upswept forefoot rode over the waves? ?  Although with its 2' wide front end it also would bash waves if the forefoot was lowered or imersed, then you would probably be able to considered it a scow rather than a sharpie.

From:Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:53 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

 Scows and barges are much different animals though we tend to use the names enter changeably.  Some of the old timers that sailed barges, as apposed to scows  on the Great lakes and along the coast claimed that Barges were pretty fast.   They were flat bottomed and straight for and aft sided. Due to this shape one told me that a barge sailing to windward only had a bow wave on the windward side which is it's bottom on a heeling barge. he claimed the farther it heeld the mor pointy the bow was. I gus this makes sense except the barges don't heel over very far??  Still they carried huge amounts of canvas so maybe they did heel a lot?  
  A good old friend of mine now gone from this world captained a barge for a year or so that sailed from Baltimore to the Bahamas several times a year.  He claimed she was sea Kindly and fast.  This barge was 70 ft long I believe and I don't know  how wide.  As a rule barges are wide.  This makes me think there was somehow something more going on there than we generally think about.  I don't know if those guys with Trilo boats are aware of this or not.    I suspect we are missing something where barges are concerned.                         Doug

On 05/17/2012 11:14 AM,philbolger@...wrote:

 

Who is "Chris Morejohn"...?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:07 AM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

triloboat sounds good but you have to get a v point rather than the blunt bow if thinking of anything beyond river ways, in bwaom, phil mentions the lack of sailing ability of scows and this is directly related to the front end of boat.

An Idaho sailing type vessel would be just as easy to build and as long as the cockpit is above WL and solid hatches are constructed.  Furtermore, keep beam to length well above 4 to 1 especially if thinking about the trilos.

 

Think the easiest way to build would be an absolutely flat bottom with the shape of anhinga only higher b -l ratio.  Build right on flat ground and sides and deck.  Move to dock, epoxy coat and antifouling while and sling and drop in water.  Chris Morejohn is adamant that the forefoot should be imersed in water, you would loose a little tacking ability and gain tracking.

 

Boat would be perfectly balanced , with long length and pointy ends great efficiency would be achieved.  Draft could be water ever you carrying would matter a biy.

From:Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:56 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

 No, no, no, guys there is nothing in the trimarans. catamearans or proa's that could  interest an old couple like us.  A slow wide boat with lots of walking around room seems more suitable to us.  I am 78 years old and am likely to be walking around on board with a walker in another ten years. I would likely be better off with a junk rig later but would like the speed and ease of handleing with two of bolgers sprite boom rigs kind of a bugeye rig, with maybe a top sprit that could be dropped  to scandalize the rig.In a gust of e wind.  I started out with the idea of a trilo boat with a bottom like the AS 29 rather than the flat bottom of the Trillo boat and full standing head room of about 6'5".  I would have no objection to a center board in a 10 ft wide boat.  I am more and more thinking about a Trilo boat with the sprite rig I have described and some rocker in her bottom.   I am concidering a very modern junk rig as well.   For now it's all speculation.   I have a lot of help to put her together but none of them have boat builder knowledge. These guys are house builders and will be totally Dependant on my boat building know how.   We'll see.:-)  Doug
    

On 05/16/2012 06:51 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote:

 

By the way, one "Outrigger Monohull" is the Proa.

http://arpex.blogspot.com/2009/07/jzerro-37ft-proa-sailing-at-17kts.html

Wander around the blog and check out the Arpex as well.  It's a tacker instead of a shunter like Jzerro.

Here's a 70footer if you want a bit more accomodation ;-)

http://www.pacificproa.nl/picture2.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS270ousYwg

Tom

From:Kent<kent@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:22 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

This is an interesting concept. I've sometimes wondered why multihulls
are always so narrow. If you built one wider, you would lose some
speed, but you'd gain a lot in space and comfort for cruising or living
aboard; and you'd keep the other advantages of multihulls, such as
shallow draft and stability.

Does anyone know of any existing boats of this type: "fat multihull" or
"outrigger monohull?"

Thanks -K.

>
>
> Doug, here's a crazy idea.
>
> Build your 10'-wide square-sided, flat-bottomed AS-29 (or AS-34 or whatever), leaving off the ballast. Then add a pair of Kurt Hughes retractable amas.
>
>http://www.multihulldesigns.com/designs_stock/d38tri.html
>
> I like Eric's suggestion of free-standing mast(s) and cambered junk sail(s). Maybe you could even build it out of aluminum, like Wolftrap. Low maintenance and tough bottom...
>
> What you would have is not a trimaran, but a stabilized monohull. The advantages are:
>
> flat(ish) sailing
> no rolling at anchor/mooring
> no rolling when sailing downwind
> can use narrow slip (15'?) compared to typical cat or tri
> can use typical travel hoist compared to cat or tri
>
> Because main hull is wide, compared to a trimaran, you won't have the speed that tris are known for. But your payload and interior comfort would be much greater.
>
> John

=

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 2:26 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

If correct 10cm would be about 4", which might help then again it might be insignificant.  There's a fellow over at yahoo boatdesigns named nuttyboats who did actual tests and says the flat bottom and square sides is most seaworthy design but forgot about him mentioning rocker. 

 

Maybe no rocker just doesnt look "proper" and thats why its not tried often, information is lacking but with people thinking "outside the box" such as trilos, elvers, and buehlers pilgrim (almost no rocker and ends completely immersed), it might work but as with all designs there is give and take with characteristics and flat bottom is just one, from others experiences it works and is probably not even a negative.

 

Even with Bolgers Anhinga which came closest to whats being proposed, the data is almost completely lost.

 

Thats why all the knows about sharpies such as being long, not to high (windage), double ends for balance should all be incorporated to reduce the risks of trying the  unknowns

 

From:tom s <tdsoren@...>
To:"bolger@yahoogroups.com" <bolger@yahoogroups.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:53 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

didn't I read somewhere that Phil determined that a 10cm radius chine alleviated the eddy issue, explaining the lack of rocker on Dovekies?

square chined boats need the rocker, with the added benefit of less wetted surface when the wind is too light to get the boat to heel?

how well do these rocker less square chined boats steer with the unequal pressure from different curvature on the forefoot?

Tom
Sent from my iPad

On May 17, 2012, at 10:44 AM, <philbolger@...> wrote:

 

If you want to go on and crankily argue against Bolger on how many issues, go do it elsewhere...
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:40 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

Whether you go with scow front end and sweep up or a point and tail in, you still loose just about the same amount of usable space, but the pointy end will be a better performer.

 

Reread my last post and its pretty sloppy, but basically its an Anhinga  with a completely flat bottom and say 8' x 40'.

 

Think you can use three staggered layers of 3/8" for everything, glue the bottom layers then the 90 degree sides, rip plies into 16" pieces and put them diagonally at the chines (three layers), this will stiffen it tremedously without tranverse frames,  they will rather be longitudinal frames.  Add the deck and do the same thing with 12" ripped pieces, use rebar idea for ballast.

 

Flat just like the trilos, but rather than upsweeping the ends you bring them to a point.  Built on the ground and just before being put in the water and still on the sling, the bottom is epoxied and antifouled. Displacement and draft dont matter as its balanced either way.

 

Chris Morejohn is also a sharpie designer, hogfishes are his boats, read about him in Ruell Parkers book.  He's put on many miles with his sharpie and actually lives on them, he says Phil's forefoot designs are unnecessary.  If so why not just have a completely flat bottom as the Dovekies and triloboats, they have been proven through experience to work satisfactorily.

 

Loosemoose, wouldnt consider the as39 a scow, almost but no cigar.  Eventhough the schuyt is technically not a scow the frontend works the same way bashing into waves rather than cutting them.  LM2 probably was slim enough and the upswept forefoot rode over the waves? ?  Although with its 2' wide front end it also would bash waves if the forefoot was lowered or imersed, then you would probably be able to considered it a scow rather than a sharpie.

From:Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:53 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

 Scows and barges are much different animals though we tend to use the names enter changeably.  Some of the old timers that sailed barges, as apposed to scows  on the Great lakes and along the coast claimed that Barges were pretty fast.   They were flat bottomed and straight for and aft sided. Due to this shape one told me that a barge sailing to windward only had a bow wave on the windward side which is it's bottom on a heeling barge. he claimed the farther it heeld the mor pointy the bow was. I gus this makes sense except the barges don't heel over very far??  Still they carried huge amounts of canvas so maybe they did heel a lot?  
  A good old friend of mine now gone from this world captained a barge for a year or so that sailed from Baltimore to the Bahamas several times a year.  He claimed she was sea Kindly and fast.  This barge was 70 ft long I believe and I don't know  how wide.  As a rule barges are wide.  This makes me think there was somehow something more going on there than we generally think about.  I don't know if those guys with Trilo boats are aware of this or not.    I suspect we are missing something where barges are concerned.                         Doug

On 05/17/2012 11:14 AM,philbolger@...wrote:

 

Who is "Chris Morejohn"...?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:07 AM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

triloboat sounds good but you have to get a v point rather than the blunt bow if thinking of anything beyond river ways, in bwaom, phil mentions the lack of sailing ability of scows and this is directly related to the front end of boat.

An Idaho sailing type vessel would be just as easy to build and as long as the cockpit is above WL and solid hatches are constructed.  Furtermore, keep beam to length well above 4 to 1 especially if thinking about the trilos.

 

Think the easiest way to build would be an absolutely flat bottom with the shape of anhinga only higher b -l ratio.  Build right on flat ground and sides and deck.  Move to dock, epoxy coat and antifouling while and sling and drop in water.  Chris Morejohn is adamant that the forefoot should be imersed in water, you would loose a little tacking ability and gain tracking.

 

Boat would be perfectly balanced , with long length and pointy ends great efficiency would be achieved.  Draft could be water ever you carrying would matter a biy.

From:Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:56 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

 No, no, no, guys there is nothing in the trimarans. catamearans or proa's that could  interest an old couple like us.  A slow wide boat with lots of walking around room seems more suitable to us.  I am 78 years old and am likely to be walking around on board with a walker in another ten years. I would likely be better off with a junk rig later but would like the speed and ease of handleing with two of bolgers sprite boom rigs kind of a bugeye rig, with maybe a top sprit that could be dropped  to scandalize the rig.In a gust of e wind.  I started out with the idea of a trilo boat with a bottom like the AS 29 rather than the flat bottom of the Trillo boat and full standing head room of about 6'5".  I would have no objection to a center board in a 10 ft wide boat.  I am more and more thinking about a Trilo boat with the sprite rig I have described and some rocker in her bottom.   I am concidering a very modern junk rig as well.   For now it's all speculation.   I have a lot of help to put her together but none of them have boat builder knowledge. These guys are house builders and will be totally Dependant on my boat building know how.   We'll see.:-)  Doug
    

On 05/16/2012 06:51 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote:

 

By the way, one "Outrigger Monohull" is the Proa.

http://arpex.blogspot.com/2009/07/jzerro-37ft-proa-sailing-at-17kts.html

Wander around the blog and check out the Arpex as well.  It's a tacker instead of a shunter like Jzerro.

Here's a 70footer if you want a bit more accomodation ;-)

http://www.pacificproa.nl/picture2.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS270ousYwg

Tom

From:Kent<kent@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:22 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

This is an interesting concept. I've sometimes wondered why multihulls
are always so narrow. If you built one wider, you would lose some
speed, but you'd gain a lot in space and comfort for cruising or living
aboard; and you'd keep the other advantages of multihulls, such as
shallow draft and stability.

Does anyone know of any existing boats of this type: "fat multihull" or
"outrigger monohull?"

Thanks -K.

>
>
> Doug, here's a crazy idea.
>
> Build your 10'-wide square-sided, flat-bottomed AS-29 (or AS-34 or whatever), leaving off the ballast. Then add a pair of Kurt Hughes retractable amas.
>
>http://www.multihulldesigns.com/designs_stock/d38tri.html
>
> I like Eric's suggestion of free-standing mast(s) and cambered junk sail(s). Maybe you could even build it out of aluminum, like Wolftrap. Low maintenance and tough bottom...
>
> What you would have is not a trimaran, but a stabilized monohull. The advantages are:
>
> flat(ish) sailing
> no rolling at anchor/mooring
> no rolling when sailing downwind
> can use narrow slip (15'?) compared to typical cat or tri
> can use typical travel hoist compared to cat or tri
>
> Because main hull is wide, compared to a trimaran, you won't have the speed that tris are known for. But your payload and interior comfort would be much greater.
>
> John

=

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:55 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

Both ways will work,

 

With Phils AS designs you get better tacking, possibly more seaworthy as the bow is then able to overcome wave action, better light air performance.

 

With Chris you get better tracking for long distance cruising, more waterline for higher speed, less slapping and maybe even less turbulence since the bow is immersed and not fighting with the waves above, even Phil adopted the topaz type forefoot later in his career to deal with this. 

From:"philbolger@..." <philbolger@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:42 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

...which seems to advise exactly the opposite on bottom-curvature to what is Bolger's perspective...
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:35 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

Maybe he also knows something about sharpies.

From:"philbolger@..." <philbolger@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

I know who he is...  Why are we discussing his insights on "bow"-profiles in a forum around the work covering decades of development and well beyond 110 designs of sharpies and -derivatives ?

Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:jhess314

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:07 PM

Subject:[bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
> Who is "Chris Morejohn"...?
> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

Susanne,

Chris Morejohn is a designer, builder, and sailor of the Hogfish family of cruising sharpies, most recently Hogfish Maximus.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/hogfish-maximus-44ish-sailing-sharpie-34759-5.html#post458720

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/hogfish-maximus-44ish-sailing-sharpie-34759-5.html#post459122

http://chrismorejohn.blogspot.com/2009/06/hogfish-maximus.html

John

----- Original Message -----

From:tom s

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:53 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

didn't I read somewhere that Phil determined that a 10cm radius chine alleviated the eddy issue, explaining the lack of rocker on Dovekies?

square chined boats need the rocker, with the added benefit of less wetted surface when the wind is too light to get the boat to heel?

how well do these rocker less square chined boats steer with the unequal pressure from different curvature on the forefoot?

Tom
Sent from my iPad

On May 17, 2012, at 10:44 AM, <philbolger@...> wrote:

 

=

If you want to go on and crankily argue against Bolger on how many issues, go do it elsewhere...
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:40 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

Whether you go with scow front end and sweep up or a point and tail in, you still loose just about the same amount of usable space, but the pointy end will be a better performer.

 

Reread my last post and its pretty sloppy, but basically its an Anhinga  with a completely flat bottom and say 8' x 40'.

 

Think you can use three staggered layers of 3/8" for everything, glue the bottom layers then the 90 degree sides, rip plies into 16" pieces and put them diagonally at the chines (three layers), this will stiffen it tremedously without tranverse frames,  they will rather be longitudinal frames.  Add the deck and do the same thing with 12" ripped pieces, use rebar idea for ballast.

 

Flat just like the trilos, but rather than upsweeping the ends you bring them to a point.  Built on the ground and just before being put in the water and still on the sling, the bottom is epoxied and antifouled. Displacement and draft dont matter as its balanced either way.

 

Chris Morejohn is also a sharpie designer, hogfishes are his boats, read about him in Ruell Parkers book.  He's put on many miles with his sharpie and actually lives on them, he says Phil's forefoot designs are unnecessary.  If so why not just have a completely flat bottom as the Dovekies and triloboats, they have been proven through experience to work satisfactorily.

 

Loosemoose, wouldnt consider the as39 a scow, almost but no cigar.  Eventhough the schuyt is technically not a scow the frontend works the same way bashing into waves rather than cutting them.  LM2 probably was slim enough and the upswept forefoot rode over the waves? ?  Although with its 2' wide front end it also would bash waves if the forefoot was lowered or imersed, then you would probably be able to considered it a scow rather than a sharpie.

From:Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:53 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

 Scows and barges are much different animals though we tend to use the names enter changeably.  Some of the old timers that sailed barges, as apposed to scows  on the Great lakes and along the coast claimed that Barges were pretty fast.   They were flat bottomed and straight for and aft sided. Due to this shape one told me that a barge sailing to windward only had a bow wave on the windward side which is it's bottom on a heeling barge. he claimed the farther it heeld the mor pointy the bow was. I gus this makes sense except the barges don't heel over very far??  Still they carried huge amounts of canvas so maybe they did heel a lot?  
  A good old friend of mine now gone from this world captained a barge for a year or so that sailed from Baltimore to the Bahamas several times a year.  He claimed she was sea Kindly and fast.  This barge was 70 ft long I believe and I don't know  how wide.  As a rule barges are wide.  This makes me think there was somehow something more going on there than we generally think about.  I don't know if those guys with Trilo boats are aware of this or not.    I suspect we are missing something where barges are concerned.                         Doug

On 05/17/2012 11:14 AM,philbolger@...wrote:

 

Who is "Chris Morejohn"...?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:07 AM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

triloboat sounds good but you have to get a v point rather than the blunt bow if thinking of anything beyond river ways, in bwaom, phil mentions the lack of sailing ability of scows and this is directly related to the front end of boat.

An Idaho sailing type vessel would be just as easy to build and as long as the cockpit is above WL and solid hatches are constructed.  Furtermore, keep beam to length well above 4 to 1 especially if thinking about the trilos.

 

Think the easiest way to build would be an absolutely flat bottom with the shape of anhinga only higher b -l ratio.  Build right on flat ground and sides and deck.  Move to dock, epoxy coat and antifouling while and sling and drop in water.  Chris Morejohn is adamant that the forefoot should be imersed in water, you would loose a little tacking ability and gain tracking.

 

Boat would be perfectly balanced , with long length and pointy ends great efficiency would be achieved.  Draft could be water ever you carrying would matter a biy.

From:Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:56 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

 No, no, no, guys there is nothing in the trimarans. catamearans or proa's that could  interest an old couple like us.  A slow wide boat with lots of walking around room seems more suitable to us.  I am 78 years old and am likely to be walking around on board with a walker in another ten years. I would likely be better off with a junk rig later but would like the speed and ease of handleing with two of bolgers sprite boom rigs kind of a bugeye rig, with maybe a top sprit that could be dropped  to scandalize the rig.In a gust of e wind.  I started out with the idea of a trilo boat with a bottom like the AS 29 rather than the flat bottom of the Trillo boat and full standing head room of about 6'5".  I would have no objection to a center board in a 10 ft wide boat.  I am more and more thinking about a Trilo boat with the sprite rig I have described and some rocker in her bottom.   I am concidering a very modern junk rig as well.   For now it's all speculation.   I have a lot of help to put her together but none of them have boat builder knowledge. These guys are house builders and will be totally Dependant on my boat building know how.   We'll see.:-)  Doug
    

On 05/16/2012 06:51 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote:

 

By the way, one "Outrigger Monohull" is the Proa.

http://arpex.blogspot.com/2009/07/jzerro-37ft-proa-sailing-at-17kts.html

Wander around the blog and check out the Arpex as well.  It's a tacker instead of a shunter like Jzerro.

Here's a 70footer if you want a bit more accomodation ;-)

http://www.pacificproa.nl/picture2.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS270ousYwg

Tom

From:Kent<kent@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:22 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

This is an interesting concept. I've sometimes wondered why multihulls
are always so narrow. If you built one wider, you would lose some
speed, but you'd gain a lot in space and comfort for cruising or living
aboard; and you'd keep the other advantages of multihulls, such as
shallow draft and stability.

Does anyone know of any existing boats of this type: "fat multihull" or
"outrigger monohull?"

Thanks -K.

>
>
> Doug, here's a crazy idea.
>
> Build your 10'-wide square-sided, flat-bottomed AS-29 (or AS-34 or whatever), leaving off the ballast. Then add a pair of Kurt Hughes retractable amas.
>
>http://www.multihulldesigns.com/designs_stock/d38tri.html
>
> I like Eric's suggestion of free-standing mast(s) and cambered junk sail(s). Maybe you could even build it out of aluminum, like Wolftrap. Low maintenance and tough bottom...
>
> What you would have is not a trimaran, but a stabilized monohull. The advantages are:
>
> flat(ish) sailing
> no rolling at anchor/mooring
> no rolling when sailing downwind
> can use narrow slip (15'?) compared to typical cat or tri
> can use typical travel hoist compared to cat or tri
>
> Because main hull is wide, compared to a trimaran, you won't have the speed that tris are known for. But your payload and interior comfort would be much greater.
>
> John

 

If you want to go on and crankily argue against Bolger on how many issues, go do it elsewhere...
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:40 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

Whether you go with scow front end and sweep up or a point and tail in, you still loose just about the same amount of usable space, but the pointy end will be a better performer.

 

Reread my last post and its pretty sloppy, but basically its an Anhinga  with a completely flat bottom and say 8' x 40'.

 

Think you can use three staggered layers of 3/8" for everything, glue the bottom layers then the 90 degree sides, rip plies into 16" pieces and put them diagonally at the chines (three layers), this will stiffen it tremedously without tranverse frames,  they will rather be longitudinal frames.  Add the deck and do the same thing with 12" ripped pieces, use rebar idea for ballast.

 

Flat just like the trilos, but rather than upsweeping the ends you bring them to a point.  Built on the ground and just before being put in the water and still on the sling, the bottom is epoxied and antifouled. Displacement and draft dont matter as its balanced either way.

 

Chris Morejohn is also a sharpie designer, hogfishes are his boats, read about him in Ruell Parkers book.  He's put on many miles with his sharpie and actually lives on them, he says Phil's forefoot designs are unnecessary.  If so why not just have a completely flat bottom as the Dovekies and triloboats, they have been proven through experience to work satisfactorily.

 

Loosemoose, wouldnt consider the as39 a scow, almost but no cigar.  Eventhough the schuyt is technically not a scow the frontend works the same way bashing into waves rather than cutting them.  LM2 probably was slim enough and the upswept forefoot rode over the waves? ?  Although with its 2' wide front end it also would bash waves if the forefoot was lowered or imersed, then you would probably be able to considered it a scow rather than a sharpie.

From:Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:53 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

 Scows and barges are much different animals though we tend to use the names enter changeably.  Some of the old timers that sailed barges, as apposed to scows  on the Great lakes and along the coast claimed that Barges were pretty fast.   They were flat bottomed and straight for and aft sided. Due to this shape one told me that a barge sailing to windward only had a bow wave on the windward side which is it's bottom on a heeling barge. he claimed the farther it heeld the mor pointy the bow was. I gus this makes sense except the barges don't heel over very far??  Still they carried huge amounts of canvas so maybe they did heel a lot?  
  A good old friend of mine now gone from this world captained a barge for a year or so that sailed from Baltimore to the Bahamas several times a year.  He claimed she was sea Kindly and fast.  This barge was 70 ft long I believe and I don't know  how wide.  As a rule barges are wide.  This makes me think there was somehow something more going on there than we generally think about.  I don't know if those guys with Trilo boats are aware of this or not.    I suspect we are missing something where barges are concerned.                         Doug

On 05/17/2012 11:14 AM,philbolger@...wrote:

 

Who is "Chris Morejohn"...?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:07 AM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

triloboat sounds good but you have to get a v point rather than the blunt bow if thinking of anything beyond river ways, in bwaom, phil mentions the lack of sailing ability of scows and this is directly related to the front end of boat.

An Idaho sailing type vessel would be just as easy to build and as long as the cockpit is above WL and solid hatches are constructed.  Furtermore, keep beam to length well above 4 to 1 especially if thinking about the trilos.

 

Think the easiest way to build would be an absolutely flat bottom with the shape of anhinga only higher b -l ratio.  Build right on flat ground and sides and deck.  Move to dock, epoxy coat and antifouling while and sling and drop in water.  Chris Morejohn is adamant that the forefoot should be imersed in water, you would loose a little tacking ability and gain tracking.

 

Boat would be perfectly balanced , with long length and pointy ends great efficiency would be achieved.  Draft could be water ever you carrying would matter a biy.

From:Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:56 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

 No, no, no, guys there is nothing in the trimarans. catamearans or proa's that could  interest an old couple like us.  A slow wide boat with lots of walking around room seems more suitable to us.  I am 78 years old and am likely to be walking around on board with a walker in another ten years. I would likely be better off with a junk rig later but would like the speed and ease of handleing with two of bolgers sprite boom rigs kind of a bugeye rig, with maybe a top sprit that could be dropped  to scandalize the rig.In a gust of e wind.  I started out with the idea of a trilo boat with a bottom like the AS 29 rather than the flat bottom of the Trillo boat and full standing head room of about 6'5".  I would have no objection to a center board in a 10 ft wide boat.  I am more and more thinking about a Trilo boat with the sprite rig I have described and some rocker in her bottom.   I am concidering a very modern junk rig as well.   For now it's all speculation.   I have a lot of help to put her together but none of them have boat builder knowledge. These guys are house builders and will be totally Dependant on my boat building know how.   We'll see.:-)  Doug
    

On 05/16/2012 06:51 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote:

 

By the way, one "Outrigger Monohull" is the Proa.

http://arpex.blogspot.com/2009/07/jzerro-37ft-proa-sailing-at-17kts.html

Wander around the blog and check out the Arpex as well.  It's a tacker instead of a shunter like Jzerro.

Here's a 70footer if you want a bit more accomodation ;-)

http://www.pacificproa.nl/picture2.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS270ousYwg

Tom

From:Kent<kent@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:22 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

This is an interesting concept. I've sometimes wondered why multihulls
are always so narrow. If you built one wider, you would lose some
speed, but you'd gain a lot in space and comfort for cruising or living
aboard; and you'd keep the other advantages of multihulls, such as
shallow draft and stability.

Does anyone know of any existing boats of this type: "fat multihull" or
"outrigger monohull?"

Thanks -K.

>
>
> Doug, here's a crazy idea.
>
> Build your 10'-wide square-sided, flat-bottomed AS-29 (or AS-34 or whatever), leaving off the ballast. Then add a pair of Kurt Hughes retractable amas.
>
>http://www.multihulldesigns.com/designs_stock/d38tri.html
>
> I like Eric's suggestion of free-standing mast(s) and cambered junk sail(s). Maybe you could even build it out of aluminum, like Wolftrap. Low maintenance and tough bottom...
>
> What you would have is not a trimaran, but a stabilized monohull. The advantages are:
>
> flat(ish) sailing
> no rolling at anchor/mooring
> no rolling when sailing downwind
> can use narrow slip (15'?) compared to typical cat or tri
> can use typical travel hoist compared to cat or tri
>
> Because main hull is wide, compared to a trimaran, you won't have the speed that tris are known for. But your payload and interior comfort would be much greater.
>
> John

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:40 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

Whether you go with scow front end and sweep up or a point and tail in, you still loose just about the same amount of usable space, but the pointy end will be a better performer.

 

Reread my last post and its pretty sloppy, but basically its an Anhinga  with a completely flat bottom and say 8' x 40'.

 

Think you can use three staggered layers of 3/8" for everything, glue the bottom layers then the 90 degree sides, rip plies into 16" pieces and put them diagonally at the chines (three layers), this will stiffen it tremedously without tranverse frames,  they will rather be longitudinal frames.  Add the deck and do the same thing with 12" ripped pieces, use rebar idea for ballast.

 

Flat just like the trilos, but rather than upsweeping the ends you bring them to a point.  Built on the ground and just before being put in the water and still on the sling, the bottom is epoxied and antifouled. Displacement and draft dont matter as its balanced either way.

 

Chris Morejohn is also a sharpie designer, hogfishes are his boats, read about him in Ruell Parkers book.  He's put on many miles with his sharpie and actually lives on them, he says Phil's forefoot designs are unnecessary.  If so why not just have a completely flat bottom as the Dovekies and triloboats, they have been proven through experience to work satisfactorily.

 

Loosemoose, wouldnt consider the as39 a scow, almost but no cigar.  Eventhough the schuyt is technically not a scow the frontend works the same way bashing into waves rather than cutting them.  LM2 probably was slim enough and the upswept forefoot rode over the waves? ?  Although with its 2' wide front end it also would bash waves if the forefoot was lowered or imersed, then you would probably be able to considered it a scow rather than a sharpie.

From:Douglas Pollard <dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:53 AM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

 Scows and barges are much different animals though we tend to use the names enter changeably.  Some of the old timers that sailed barges, as apposed to scows  on the Great lakes and along the coast claimed that Barges were pretty fast.   They were flat bottomed and straight for and aft sided. Due to this shape one told me that a barge sailing to windward only had a bow wave on the windward side which is it's bottom on a heeling barge. he claimed the farther it heeld the mor pointy the bow was. I gus this makes sense except the barges don't heel over very far??  Still they carried huge amounts of canvas so maybe they did heel a lot?  
  A good old friend of mine now gone from this world captained a barge for a year or so that sailed from Baltimore to the Bahamas several times a year.  He claimed she was sea Kindly and fast.  This barge was 70 ft long I believe and I don't know  how wide.  As a rule barges are wide.  This makes me think there was somehow something more going on there than we generally think about.  I don't know if those guys with Trilo boats are aware of this or not.    I suspect we are missing something where barges are concerned.                         Doug

On 05/17/2012 11:14 AM,philbolger@...wrote:

 

Who is "Chris Morejohn"...?
Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 11:07 AM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

triloboat sounds good but you have to get a v point rather than the blunt bow if thinking of anything beyond river ways, in bwaom, phil mentions the lack of sailing ability of scows and this is directly related to the front end of boat.

An Idaho sailing type vessel would be just as easy to build and as long as the cockpit is above WL and solid hatches are constructed.  Furtermore, keep beam to length well above 4 to 1 especially if thinking about the trilos.

 

Think the easiest way to build would be an absolutely flat bottom with the shape of anhinga only higher b -l ratio.  Build right on flat ground and sides and deck.  Move to dock, epoxy coat and antifouling while and sling and drop in water.  Chris Morejohn is adamant that the forefoot should be imersed in water, you would loose a little tacking ability and gain tracking.

 

Boat would be perfectly balanced , with long length and pointy ends great efficiency would be achieved.  Draft could be water ever you carrying would matter a biy.

From:Douglas Pollard<dougpol1@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:56 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

 No, no, no, guys there is nothing in the trimarans. catamearans or proa's that could  interest an old couple like us.  A slow wide boat with lots of walking around room seems more suitable to us.  I am 78 years old and am likely to be walking around on board with a walker in another ten years. I would likely be better off with a junk rig later but would like the speed and ease of handleing with two of bolgers sprite boom rigs kind of a bugeye rig, with maybe a top sprit that could be dropped  to scandalize the rig.In a gust of e wind.  I started out with the idea of a trilo boat with a bottom like the AS 29 rather than the flat bottom of the Trillo boat and full standing head room of about 6'5".  I would have no objection to a center board in a 10 ft wide boat.  I am more and more thinking about a Trilo boat with the sprite rig I have described and some rocker in her bottom.   I am concidering a very modern junk rig as well.   For now it's all speculation.   I have a lot of help to put her together but none of them have boat builder knowledge. These guys are house builders and will be totally Dependant on my boat building know how.   We'll see.:-)  Doug
    

On 05/16/2012 06:51 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote:

 

By the way, one "Outrigger Monohull" is the Proa.

http://arpex.blogspot.com/2009/07/jzerro-37ft-proa-sailing-at-17kts.html

Wander around the blog and check out the Arpex as well.  It's a tacker instead of a shunter like Jzerro.

Here's a 70footer if you want a bit more accomodation ;-)

http://www.pacificproa.nl/picture2.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS270ousYwg

Tom

From:Kent<kent@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Wednesday, May 16, 2012 1:22 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

This is an interesting concept. I've sometimes wondered why multihulls
are always so narrow. If you built one wider, you would lose some
speed, but you'd gain a lot in space and comfort for cruising or living
aboard; and you'd keep the other advantages of multihulls, such as
shallow draft and stability.

Does anyone know of any existing boats of this type: "fat multihull" or
"outrigger monohull?"

Thanks -K.

>
>
> Doug, here's a crazy idea.
>
> Build your 10'-wide square-sided, flat-bottomed AS-29 (or AS-34 or whatever), leaving off the ballast. Then add a pair of Kurt Hughes retractable amas.
>
>http://www.multihulldesigns.com/designs_stock/d38tri.html
>
> I like Eric's suggestion of free-standing mast(s) and cambered junk sail(s). Maybe you could even build it out of aluminum, like Wolftrap. Low maintenance and tough bottom...
>
> What you would have is not a trimaran, but a stabilized monohull. The advantages are:
>
> flat(ish) sailing
> no rolling at anchor/mooring
> no rolling when sailing downwind
> can use narrow slip (15'?) compared to typical cat or tri
> can use typical travel hoist compared to cat or tri
>
> Because main hull is wide, compared to a trimaran, you won't have the speed that tris are known for. But your payload and interior comfort would be much greater.
>
> John

----- Original Message -----

From:Tom Pee

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 1:35 PM

Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

Maybe he also knows something about sharpies.

From:"philbolger@..." <philbolger@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject:Re: [bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

I know who he is...  Why are we discussing his insights on "bow"-profiles in a forum around the work covering decades of development and well beyond 110 designs of sharpies and -derivatives ?

Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

----- Original Message -----

From:jhess314

To:bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent:Thursday, May 17, 2012 12:07 PM

Subject:[bolger] Re: wider as 29

 

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, <philbolger@...> wrote:
>
> Who is "Chris Morejohn"...?
> Susanne Altenburger, PB&F

Susanne,

Chris Morejohn is a designer, builder, and sailor of the Hogfish family of cruising sharpies, most recently Hogfish Maximus.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/hogfish-maximus-44ish-sailing-sharpie-34759-5.html#post458720

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/sailboats/hogfish-maximus-44ish-sailing-sharpie-34759-5.html#post459122

http://chrismorejohn.blogspot.com/2009/06/hogfish-maximus.html

John