Re: [bolger] Re: 40' Puffer

For now, can only think of two minor changes to "turn into a real cruiser".
1. Add more rocker.
2. Add V form to stem forefoot.
Even without those, it will be a real cruiser and surprisingly capable in open waters.

From:"daschultz8275@..." <daschultz8275@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Thursday, November 8, 2012 9:47 PM
Subject:[bolger] Re: 40' Puffer
 


--- Inmailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:
>
> ..."no specific details of handling issues..."
>

The handling issue is alluded to in the paragraph where Bolger scolds those who would try to turn into a real cruiser. He say folks will complain about Illinois' behavior in a head sea.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:
>
> ..."no specific details of handling issues..."
>

The handling issue is alluded to in the paragraph where Bolger scolds those who would try to turn into a real cruiser. He say folks will complain about Illinois' behavior in a head sea.
Reread article and no specific details of handling issues otherthan the handiness of the fwd OB.
you should without doubt make it wider if you build for additional height, it will slightly decrease efficiency due to l-b ratio. I would stay with 45hp it keeps it simple to maintain and less loss of room for addional fuel storage. The hull will make headway even in currents, if they are to much for the 45, you shouldnt be in them even with higher horses. The headsea action wouldnt be any worse than the bluff bowed as39, a sail might be called for if spending more time in open waters.






------------------------------
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 8:58 PM PSTdaschultz8275@...wrote:

>
>Glad you corrected yourself. Bolger warned in the article that not only would the outboard fail to stay immersed, the slab sided bow will cause at least handling issues in some particular seas. IMO more HP to handle river currents makes sense, if one wishes to add the fuel capacity to feed it. I have also thought to get the HP aboard by turning the fwd engine around so that it thrusts aft. Tandem OBs of say 75-100hp each would get Illinois moving along well. The forward motorwell would need to be further aft just because of motor size.
>
>IF I were to build it, I would ADD 6"-8" to the sides to provide sufficient headroom for my 6'3" frame.
>
>--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:
>
Glad you corrected yourself. Bolger warned in the article that not only would the outboard fail to stay immersed, the slab sided bow will cause at least handling issues in some particular seas. IMO more HP to handle river currents makes sense, if one wishes to add the fuel capacity to feed it. I have also thought to get the HP aboard by turning the fwd engine around so that it thrusts aft. Tandem OBs of say 75-100hp each would get Illinois moving along well. The forward motorwell would need to be further aft just because of motor size.

IF I were to build it, I would ADD 6"-8" to the sides to provide sufficient headroom for my 6'3" frame.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Tom Pee <tompee77@...> wrote:
I was wrong and prrsumptious with the three points. 1. The hull height cant really be reduced for full hdrm. Thought it was possible to use reull parker method but the frames are necessary for square sides. 2. Winglets will cause more harm than good. 3. Keel would result in a completely different type of boat and hull shape would change considerably. The design is brilliant for intended purposes.
It would still make a good sea boat beyond most peoples expectations provided all systems are reliable and water tight.
------------------------------
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 2:43 PM PST Tom Pee wrote:

>Puffer concept could fulfill the same requirements as Phil described for Illinois.  Cruising riverways, lakes, and carefully selected passage times to cross the Gulfstream to the Bahama's.   He designed the forward box keel to satisfactorly part waters, along with at least 2,000 gallons of water storage (8 tons ) for stability.   Its most useful purpose would be as a very comfortable dock queen and when needed, quite able to move on its own without much trouble.
>
>For future builders, Illinois will be a very capable sea boat.   With a stout hull, good ports/hatches and a reliable outboard, it will make fast passages with a steady and kind motion.   Very easy to go beyond what Phil intended for the design as it has even better hull form than the proven as39, so here go the hated changes for improvement.
>1. There is room for lowering the freeboard,using the hull bottom as floor, at least 10" of the top should be cutoff.  Without a doubt this will improve windage and rolling behavior.
>2. As long as the hull is moving forward it will beautifully handle itself but, in more turbulent waters the OB will need all the help it can get to accomplish this, so with the the money saved cutting of the top, use it to add 3" Matt Layden type winglets at the chines to reduce up/down heaving.  These two changes keep same overall costs.
>3. For fulltime ocean capable boat add full keel (as55 type) and diesel power.  Adds draft with overall 1% additional expense for keel.  Dry exhaust/keel cooling keep similiar costs vs OB.
>
>Changes the type of cruising grounds visualized by Phil in his article, to more foriegn and exotic locations with same low costs possible other than additional fuel to get there.
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: "daschultz8275@..." <daschultz8275@...>
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:26 PM
>Subject: [bolger] Re: 40' Puffer
>
>
>
>
>That Puffer was a concept published in MAIB in sequence with #630, Illinois. The intent was to be a house boat with some mobility vs a true cruiser. I don't believe there is a completed plans set for this boat.
>
>Sorry to say that because it was a concept there wasn't much detail in the brief MAIB article. I agree that maintenance access would be through a hatch beneath the bed. I also thought the lifting mechanism for the small boat might be available to hoist a motor if needed.
>
>I really liked the living space of this concept though I was even more intrigued by Illinois, that, with another 100hp I thought could be a nice river cruiser live-aboard.
>
>
>
I reread the illinoid article and I was wrong on all three points. 1. For 6ft headrm as designed its perfect, thought it could be done as parker method but you need the frames for square sides plus you dont want to be walking over them. 2. the winglets would cause more harm than good and take away from the simple construction. 3. Adding the keel would change it to a completely different boat and all the hydrostatic calculations would have to be reworked. Its a brilliant design as is. I still stand by the idea it woud make a surprisingly good sea boat.


------------------------------
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 2:43 PM PST Tom Pee wrote:

>Puffer concept could fulfill the same requirements as Phil described for Illinois.  Cruising riverways, lakes, and carefully selected passage times to cross the Gulfstream to the Bahama's.   He designed the forward box keel to satisfactorly part waters, along with at least 2,000 gallons of water storage (8 tons ) for stability.   Its most useful purpose would be as a very comfortable dock queen and when needed, quite able to move on its own without much trouble.
>
>For future builders, Illinois will be a very capable sea boat.   With a stout hull, good ports/hatches and a reliable outboard, it will make fast passages with a steady and kind motion.   Very easy to go beyond what Phil intended for the design as it has even better hull form than the proven as39, so here go the hated changes for improvement.
>1. There is room for lowering the freeboard,using the hull bottom as floor, at least 10" of the top should be cutoff.  Without a doubt this will improve windage and rolling behavior.
>2. As long as the hull is moving forward it will beautifully handle itself but, in more turbulent waters the OB will need all the help it can get to accomplish this, so with the the money saved cutting of the top, use it to add 3" Matt Layden type winglets at the chines to reduce up/down heaving.  These two changes keep same overall costs.
>3. For fulltime ocean capable boat add full keel (as55 type) and diesel power.  Adds draft with overall 1% additional expense for keel.  Dry exhaust/keel cooling keep similiar costs vs OB.
>
>Changes the type of cruising grounds visualized by Phil in his article, to more foriegn and exotic locations with same low costs possible other than additional fuel to get there.
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: "daschultz8275@..." <daschultz8275@...>
>To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:26 PM
>Subject: [bolger] Re: 40' Puffer
>
>
>
>
>That Puffer was a concept published in MAIB in sequence with #630, Illinois. The intent was to be a house boat with some mobility vs a true cruiser. I don't believe there is a completed plans set for this boat.
>
>Sorry to say that because it was a concept there wasn't much detail in the brief MAIB article. I agree that maintenance access would be through a hatch beneath the bed. I also thought the lifting mechanism for the small boat might be available to hoist a motor if needed.
>
>I really liked the living space of this concept though I was even more intrigued by Illinois, that, with another 100hp I thought could be a nice river cruiser live-aboard.
>
>
>
Puffer concept could fulfill the same requirements as Phil described for Illinois.  Cruising riverways, lakes, and carefully selected passage times to cross the Gulfstream to the Bahama's.   He designed the forward box keel to satisfactorly part waters, along with at least 2,000 gallons of water storage (8 tons ) for stability.   Its most useful purpose would be as a very comfortable dock queen and when needed, quite able to move on its own without much trouble.
 
For future builders, Illinois will be a very capable sea boat.   With a stout hull, good ports/hatches and a reliable outboard, it will make fast passages with a steady and kind motion.   Very easy to go beyond what Phil intended for the design as it has even better hull form than the proven as39, so here go the hated changes for improvement. 
1. There is room for lowering the freeboard,using the hull bottom as floor, at least 10" of the top should be cutoff.  Without a doubt this will improve windage and rolling behavior.
2. As long as the hull is moving forward it will beautifully handle itself but, in more turbulent waters the OB will need all the help it can get to accomplish this, so with the the money saved cutting of the top, use it to add 3" Matt Layden type winglets at the chines to reduce up/down heaving.  These two changes keep same overall costs.
3. For fulltime ocean capable boat add full keel (as55 type) and diesel power.  Adds draft with overall 1% additional expense for keel.  Dry exhaust/keel cooling keep similiar costs vs OB.  
 
Changes the type of cruising grounds visualized by Phil in his article, to more foriegn and exotic locations with same low costs possible other than additional fuel to get there.    

From:"daschultz8275@..." <daschultz8275@...>
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent:Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:26 PM
Subject:[bolger] Re: 40' Puffer
 
That Puffer was a concept published in MAIB in sequence with #630, Illinois. The intent was to be a house boat with some mobility vs a true cruiser. I don't believe there is a completed plans set for this boat.

Sorry to say that because it was a concept there wasn't much detail in the brief MAIB article. I agree that maintenance access would be through a hatch beneath the bed. I also thought the lifting mechanism for the small boat might be available to hoist a motor if needed.

I really liked the living space of this concept though I was even more intrigued by Illinois, that, with another 100hp I thought could be a nice river cruiser live-aboard.

That Puffer was a concept published in MAIB in sequence with #630, Illinois. The intent was to be a house boat with some mobility vs a true cruiser. I don't believe there is a completed plans set for this boat.

Sorry to say that because it was a concept there wasn't much detail in the brief MAIB article. I agree that maintenance access would be through a hatch beneath the bed. I also thought the lifting mechanism for the small boat might be available to hoist a motor if needed.

I really liked the living space of this concept though I was even more intrigued by Illinois, that, with another 100hp I thought could be a nice river cruiser live-aboard.
My guess is that lifting the bed is how access made to ouboard engine? What did Phil have to say about this arrangement?