RE: [bolger] Re: Bolger Speakeasy
I wonder whether an overpowered speakeasy would produce a wave or trough at a certain displacement speed that left the hull poorly supported amidships, such that she could, with little inducement, fall over into the hole. This was a discovery of Clinton Crane as he attempted to make faster and faster displacement race-boats in, what, the 19-teens?
From:bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Ofdjdecker2002
Sent:Saturday, July 07, 2012 1:31 PM
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject:[bolger] Re: Bolger Sneakeasy
--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Scot Mc Pherson <scot.mcpherson@...> wrote:
>
> Why can't the sneak easy use a bigger engine? Much smaller boats seem to be
> powered by dual outboards with higher HP ratings.
>
> I guess this is just one part I don't understand...Is it really a matter of
> too much HP or is the design unsuitable for higher speeds and torques?
>
>
Phil addressed this issue in Boats With An Open Mind. I could haul out the book and quote him directly, but what fun would that be?
Let's see what I can remember.
Sneakeasy was originally designed for looking really really good while toodling around Florida canal no-wake zones. Her light weight and 'planing while sitting still' design makes her able to toodle a lot faster than those 'smaller boats with multiple big heavy motors' you mentioned, and without leaving a wake. A large part of the wake issue is weight, and a large part of the weight issue is the engine, which is why Phil originally specified a 7.5 HP outboard.
He goes on to mention another Sneakeasy fitted with a 35 HP engine
being clocked at 30-something mph, and goes on to speculate that there is no reason the hull couldn't go 50-60 mph with the right engine, and that it would take a lot less HP to do that than the original 1920's designs she's styled to emulate.
Phil worried about what would happen if somebody attempted a tight turn at that kind of speed in the original Sneakeasy design. Catching an edge, tripping, rolling, coming apart are images his prose brought to mind. Sounded bad when I read it.
The impression I got from the text was that you _could_ put a light 50-65 HP engine on a Sneakeasy if you were nuts, and you would go like a bat as long as you turned very gently at speed - but the added weight would sacrifice the no-wake performance that was an original design goal, and there'd be a significant element of danger involved.
There's a variant cutwater design for Sneakeasy - I wonder if anyone has considered what difference that would make to high-speed performance. Or maybe the answer is deployable hydrofoils?
-Derek