Storm Petrel

Are plans available for the 16' Lateen Rigged Storm Petrel. If so how can I get them and how much are they?

I actually posted those photos in the Files section, almost seven
years ago now, after corresponding with Marc Lander. Be sure to
read the text file with the photos as it includes some interesting
sailing impressions from the rough water of San Francisco Bay,
perhaps relevant to wet and windy Puget Sound.

I am sure you have seen these, but here are some links if anyone
else wants to check them out:

Marc Lander's boat in the Files section of this group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Storm%20Petrel/

Steve Hansen's page, including notes on an alternative keel/rudder
arrangement Phil Bolger sketched at his request:
http://www.belljar.net/bolgersp.htm

Alaska Tim's 8th grade boatbuilding project, which mentions an
alternative rig:
http://209.193.28.16/Boats/StormPetrel/

Chuck Merrel's posting of Bolger's original article:
http://www.boatdesign.com/postings/Files/petrel.pdf

I have the Storm Petrel plans and my own ideas on modifications, but
I wonder now if it's really the right boat for me. Storm Petrel is
definitely enough boat for my wife and me and our three small kids,
but it's always made me a little nervous in terms of safety. As you
can see (especially in the Alaska pics above) it's really a boat you
sit on, not in, which would be better for small kids. Rather than
going with a elaborate rail, it would probably be easier to just
pick another boat.

Oh well, it will make a good retirement project when the kids are
grown.

Cheers,

Matthew

For use in Puget Sound, I wonder if some sort of 'glass house' boat
like a Micro Navigator or Chebacco w/Navigator cabin [even a
Birdwatcher] might be more useful for cold or wet days.

> > cruiser for Puget Sound, where I happen to live.

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "FRANK Coletta" <coletta_j@...> wrote:

>
> Hello all.
>
> I was was on Chuck Merrell's Private Posting site,
>http://www.boatdesign.com/postings/index.htm,and came upon the

Bolger Storm

> Petrel design that interested me. I like the small motor sailor

concept.

> Does anyone have any experience building or motor sailing this

design. I

> found a site where one was built in Juneau.
>
> This design kind of fits in with the recent Duckworks contest for

a cheap

> cruiser for Puget Sound, where I happen to live.
>
> Also, if anyone knows of any other small motor sailor design, let

me know.

>
> Regards,
> Frank
>

There are some photos in the files here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/files/Storm%20Petrel/

I really like the design and especially the building method. Very
simple and elegant.

I would be tempted to make it with a small doghouse and a sliding
hatch like a Paradox.

Nels

Nels

Hello all.

I was was on Chuck Merrell's Private Posting site,
http://www.boatdesign.com/postings/index.htm,and came upon the Bolger Storm
Petrel design that interested me. I like the small motor sailor concept.
Does anyone have any experience building or motor sailing this design. I
found a site where one was built in Juneau.

This design kind of fits in with the recent Duckworks contest for a cheap
cruiser for Puget Sound, where I happen to live.

Also, if anyone knows of any other small motor sailor design, let me know.

Regards,
Frank

Hi Ernie,

what about having twin lee-daggerboards like the ocean going
Centennial ll ("most economical boat fit to keep the sea"). Each
board would be around 40kg, not such a heavy lift really. Though if
that's too much you might, say, rig a demountable tackle cleated
from gunnel to hook a small hole in the board tip. Locate the board
at pre-set depths by pin through mount and board.

If your centre of sail area makes it dificult to mount lee-dagger
boards parallel to the boats fore-aft centreline ( they may toe in
or out too much if not at the point of maximum beam ) make them
bilge dagger boards. I've read that PCB hates dagger boards, but he
has used them eg. Windsprint, Ostar lV Racer.

Dagerboards might be galv steel like the as-designed low aspect keel
or weighted timber like Centennial ll. Thin flat steel boards (with
lead bulbs?) may be prone to stall at lower speeds.

However, PCB only says SP can't be expected to sail well in light to
moderate wind with the small Zephyr lateen rig, and that she
will "sail respectably enough when there is any weight in the wind".
He has apparently designed a larger sail plan for Tim's Alaskan
boat. This implies she could sail relatively well. She looks as
though she could.

SP should sail faster with moderate to high aspect dagger boards,
especially to windward. She can be more easily trailed, beached, and
gotten across those shallow areas. However with the as-designed keel
collisions should be better absorbed, and it strengthens the hull
longitudinally. ( Does the hull structurally require this
strengthening, or is it just a welcome consequence of choosing such
a simple inexpensive lateral plane?)

Graeme
(who is also pondering how this safe lovely off shore camper may
also be at home in shallow Moreton Bay, on the beach, and on a
simple trailer.)

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

>
> Hello Everyone, I'm posting for the first time.
> I have been very interested in the Storm Petrel as the perfect

heavy

> weather rowing/sailing/camping craft but have never built one

because

> I needed a boat that was beachable.
>
> I guess it wouldn't sail without the keel and you'd have to add a
> centerboard which would probably end up in the middle of the

cuddy,

> one of the boat's better features.
>
> I'm new to this forum and don't know if there has already been any
> discussion about optional keel designs for Storm Petrel like twin
> keels or bilge keels... Leeboards? I'll keep searching the

archives.

>
> Thank you,
>
> Ernie

I was pretty sure that the keel was still to come, here is the rest of
the story.

HJ

Fritz

Did Tim ever get the keel done and bolted on? Did he ever get it sailing.

HJ

Yes, he made a weighted, plywood keel (one of Bolger's options). It
sails well, but with the "storm" (lateen) rig, it needs a lot of wind to
make it go, as was the point. Next year, Tim wants to make the larger,
lugsail rig for it.....Auke Bay winds are usually light in the summer of
course, and it needs more ooomph. He did have a ball with it though,
motoring, rowing, and sailing.

--Fritz

Bruce Hallman wrote:

>>Here is a site of an 8th grader building a Storm Petrel.
>>
>>http://209.193.28.16/Boats/StormPetrel/
>>
>>
>>
>
>I agree that his story is inspiring. Though, I recall that
>he left of the ballast for the boat, which changes everything
>about Storm Petrel as conceived by Phil Bolger.
>
>
>
>
>

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:

> I agree that his story is inspiring. Though, I recall that
> he left of the ballast for the boat, which changes everything
> about Storm Petrel as conceived by Phil Bolger.

He may have not made the keel and bolted it on yet. I kind of assumed
that it was still to be done.

Pete

> Here is a site of an 8th grader building a Storm Petrel.
>
>http://209.193.28.16/Boats/StormPetrel/
>

I agree that his story is inspiring. Though, I recall that
he left of the ballast for the boat, which changes everything
about Storm Petrel as conceived by Phil Bolger.

Here is a site of an 8th grader building a Storm Petrel.

http://209.193.28.16/Boats/StormPetrel/

I think I remember Fritz saying they got a sail on it this summer,
pictures to go up some time in the future.

Talk about a Swallows and Amazon's dream, here is a kid just entering
high school with a boat that is capable of cruising some of the most
gorgeous country in the world, four summers before life hauls him up
short and parents that are encouraging him.

HJ

mat_man22 wrote:

>
>Storm Petrel has too much flare in the sides for leeboards.
>I have never seen any Bolger plans with bilge keels,
>not sure why.
>
>This site has info on the shallow draft keel:
>http://www.belljar.net/bolgersp.htm
>
>You might cut some oar holes in the side of Paradox like Swamp Thing:
>http://home.triad.rr.com/lcruise/swampthing1.htm
>
>I am sure I will get flamed for this, but you could consider
>building Paradox with lower sides and open cockpit like
>Storm Petrel.
>
>The sides might be low enough to row on Michalak's AF3 with leeboards:
>http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/store/plans/jim/af3/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, 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.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>.
>
>
>

> The sides might be low enough to row on Michalak's AF3 with leeboards:
>http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/store/plans/jim/af3/

If I remember correctly, Jim shows ports in the sides for oars on the
AF3 plans.

I think he considers the AF3 to be a more sheltered water boat. I got
the impression he didn't think it was a good idea to use one for
touring the Florida Keys when I asked about it.

Pete

> I checked with Amazon, Abebooks, etc. and found that Mr.
> Bolger's "Different Boats" is going for upwards of $40 - $50!

A great book, worth $50.

Strorm Petrel was also published in Small Boat Journal, Vol. 16

http://hallman.org/sbj/16/

Storm Petrel has too much flare in the sides for leeboards.
I have never seen any Bolger plans with bilge keels,
not sure why.

This site has info on the shallow draft keel:
http://www.belljar.net/bolgersp.htm

You might cut some oar holes in the side of Paradox like Swamp Thing:
http://home.triad.rr.com/lcruise/swampthing1.htm

I am sure I will get flamed for this, but you could consider
building Paradox with lower sides and open cockpit like
Storm Petrel.

The sides might be low enough to row on Michalak's AF3 with leeboards:
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/store/plans/jim/af3/

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "mat_man22" <mat_man@u...> wrote:

>
> Hi Ernie
>
> Looks like the plans are in Bolger's book "Different Boats" - 1980
>
> A copy is here:
>http://www.boatdesign.com/postings/Files/petrel.pdf
>
> Some people have been able to use an enlarging copier and use
> plans in the book. Some of Bolger's books are out of print
> and expensive. Inter-Library loan may be able to get a copy.
>
> You might like the 14' Paradox better. It has chine runners
> that are made for beaching:
>
>http://home.triad.rr.com/lcruise/plans1.htm
>http://home.triad.rr.com/lcruise/paradox1.htm
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paradoxbuilders
>
> Plans are only $35.
>
> Best of luck
>
> Mat

Thanks, Mat

I checked with Amazon, Abebooks, etc. and found that Mr.
Bolger's "Different Boats" is going for upwards of $40 - $50! Maybe I
can enlarge the online plans you pointed out and work with them. But
it might be better to send a fax and communicate directly with Bolger
and Friends and get the benefit of the keel and sailplan updates and
their great support.

Funny you should mention Paradox. It's the boat I keep starting to
build. I have a set of plans which I look over from time to time. I
really like that design a lot except for a couple of things. I'm
diabetic and need to exercise regularly and I love to row. The
Paradox's yuloh puts me off - I guess it's just my ignorance. Maybe
it can be rowed the conventional way. And perhaps the Storm Petrel is
not even a great rowing boat but it has an open cockpit and a "cabin"
and Paradox with no cockpit feels like an "indoor" boat. It's all
about trade-offs, I guess.

Cheers,

Ernie

Hi Ernie

Looks like the plans are in Bolger's book "Different Boats" - 1980

A copy is here:
http://www.boatdesign.com/postings/Files/petrel.pdf

Some people have been able to use an enlarging copier and use
plans in the book. Some of Bolger's books are out of print
and expensive. Inter-Library loan may be able to get a copy.

You might like the 14' Paradox better. It has chine runners
that are made for beaching:

http://home.triad.rr.com/lcruise/plans1.htm
http://home.triad.rr.com/lcruise/paradox1.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/paradoxbuilders

Plans are only $35.

Best of luck

Mat

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

>
> Hey Nels,
>
> That sounds very promising. No I haven't seen the keel mods, or

the

> plans, in fact I have to ask a dumb question: Where can Storm

Petrel

> plans be found these days?
>
> Thanks for the tip.
>
> Ernie

Plans are available from PCB&F. Send him a fax and give them your
phone number. Ask for complete information as I think they have a
larger sailplan option as well. Plans are less than $100 last I
heard.

Cheers, Nels

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Nels" <arvent@h...> wrote:

> Hi Ernie,
>
> Did you see the shallow keel modification that is now available

with

> the plans? This would make it trailable and beachable unless you

are

> at a very shallow beach. It is a lead and plywood keel like a
> smaller version of Micro.
>
> That would be my choice. I really like that design. It's
> construction sequence is elegant in my opinion.
>
> Cheers, Nels

Hey Nels,

That sounds very promising. No I haven't seen the keel mods, or the
plans, in fact I have to ask a dumb question: Where can Storm Petrel
plans be found these days?

Thanks for the tip.

Ernie

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

> John,
>
> Thanks for responding. I re-read Mr. Bolger's write-up on the boat
> and found the following:
>
> "...what the designer can do about seaworthiness is to lay out the
> boat in such a way that it can roll over and over, be totally
> submerged, and end up right-side-up without a disastrous amount of
> water inside." And:
>
> "The keel... weighs 170 pounds, enough to make sure she'd always

end

> up with it under her in the long run."
>
> So you're right, without that particular keel, her seaworthiness -
> the whole point of that design - would be compromised.
>
> Ernie

Hi Ernie,

Did you see the shallow keel modification that is now available with
the plans? This would make it trailable and beachable unless you are
at a very shallow beach. It is a lead and plywood keel like a
smaller version of Micro.

That would be my choice. I really like that design. It's
construction sequence is elegant in my opinion.

Cheers, Nels

--- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
<John.Trussell@w...> wrote:

> Ernie--As I recall, PCB drew Storm Petral as a minimal rough water

cruiser. I suspect that the metal keel is an integral part of that
concept. I'm sure you could modify yhr boat with a leeboard or bilge
boards (either of which would keep the cuddy clear), but you would
give up the self righting features of the design.

>
> John T
>

John,

Thanks for responding. I re-read Mr. Bolger's write-up on the boat
and found the following:

"...what the designer can do about seaworthiness is to lay out the
boat in such a way that it can roll over and over, be totally
submerged, and end up right-side-up without a disastrous amount of
water inside." And:

"The keel... weighs 170 pounds, enough to make sure she'd always end
up with it under her in the long run."

So you're right, without that particular keel, her seaworthiness -
the whole point of that design - would be compromised.

Ernie

Ernie--As I recall, PCB drew Storm Petral as a minimal rough water cruiser. I suspect that the metal keel is an integral part of that concept. I'm sure you could modify yhr boat with a leeboard or bilge boards (either of which would keep the cuddy clear), but you would give up the self righting features of the design.

John T

----- Original Message -----
From: erniefossel
To:bolger@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 7:15 PM
Subject: [bolger] Storm Petrel

Hello Everyone, I'm posting for the first time.

I read Marc Lander's account of his Storm Petrel outing on the SF Bay
in summer and it sounds about normal for that area. The SF Bay, San
Pablo Bay and Tomales Bay, which are my usual cruising grounds, all
have a habit of getting uncomfortably windy very quickly,
particularly on a summer afternoon. Sounds like the boat did real
well.

I have been very interested in the Storm Petrel as the perfect heavy
weather rowing/sailing/camping craft but have never built one because
I needed a boat that was beachable.

I guess it wouldn't sail without the keel and you'd have to add a
centerboard which would probably end up in the middle of the cuddy,
one of the boat's better features.

I'm new to this forum and don't know if there has already been any
discussion about optional keel designs for Storm Petrel like twin
keels or bilge keels... Leeboards? I'll keep searching the archives.

Thank you,

Ernie

Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, 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.com

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Everyone, I'm posting for the first time.

I read Marc Lander's account of his Storm Petrel outing on the SF Bay
in summer and it sounds about normal for that area. The SF Bay, San
Pablo Bay and Tomales Bay, which are my usual cruising grounds, all
have a habit of getting uncomfortably windy very quickly,
particularly on a summer afternoon. Sounds like the boat did real
well.

I have been very interested in the Storm Petrel as the perfect heavy
weather rowing/sailing/camping craft but have never built one because
I needed a boat that was beachable.

I guess it wouldn't sail without the keel and you'd have to add a
centerboard which would probably end up in the middle of the cuddy,
one of the boat's better features.

I'm new to this forum and don't know if there has already been any
discussion about optional keel designs for Storm Petrel like twin
keels or bilge keels... Leeboards? I'll keep searching the archives.

Thank you,

Ernie

Here is a site for a good look at a step bottom being built. Go to member boats and click on Obsession. Also look on left of home page for a good test of 3M -5200 adhesive. www.nhacbm.org
CCG
wmrpage@...wrote:In a message dated 9/29/02 6:44:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
harbinger@...writes:

> I have run many rpm vs mph curves (same as hp vs mph curve) for the
> purpose of prop selection and find that Crouch's formula is pretty
> good.
>

George Crouch obviously knew what he was doing and advanced the state of the
art a very great deal while he was doing it. What I find of interest (and
evidently, this is a hobby-horse that no one else wants to ride), is the
divergence between the estimated power requirements using Crouch's formula
compared to that Gerr gives for displacement boats (no attribution given)
when applied to long, narrow, low-displacement boats. (e.g. "Sneakeasy" and
its progeny)

For common boats of high D/L ratios and high horsepower engines, the
transition regime is not of much interest - they are either extremely
inefficient displacement boats at low speeds, or slightly less inefficient
planing boats at high speeds. The transition from one mode to the other is
rather ugly and occurs at a relatively low speed, combined with radical
changes in pitch and great big wakes, at least until they are on plane. No
one attempts to operate them in the transitional regime, at least for any
period of time.

It would seem that low D/L ratio boats could be usesfully operated in the
transitional speed regime, but I wonder if anyone has the data or formulae to
account for their performance in that range.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
- To order 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.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Saturday, September 28, 2002, at 07:07 PM,
boatbuilding@...wrote:

> One could aways do the experiment mentioned by Gerr. Drill a
> hole in the bottom, bring the boat up to speed, pull the plug
> and see if water shoots up at you.

I don't know how Lord determined whether a given bottom
was sucking or not, but he did say that Higgins, was so
proud of the "fact" that the warped plane bottom on their
PT boat generated 8 tons on suction that they patented
the idea.

hal

On Saturday, September 28, 2002, at 07:13 AM, Chris Lasdauskas wrote:

>
> Hi Hal,
> yes, but not in any one place! He builds up to it through examining
> different example boats, then later by examining different topics. For
> instance, in a chapter called "The Ultimate Sportfisherman" he examines
> desirable characteristics for that sort of vessel, and his solution
> (the
> Off Soundings 34). He discusses beam, entry shape, chine shape and size
> and the sections.No simnple formaulae or anything like that, but he
> does
> mention "The buttock angles in the run for both the chine and the hull
> have been adjusted to give proper planing trim (approximately 4 to 5
> degrees)..." (p67).
>
> It is an excellent book and very easy to read - it is actually amusing
> -
> I recommend you buy or borrow a copy :)

Ok, another book to buy.

hal

--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:
What I find of interest (and
> evidently, this is a hobby-horse that no one else wants to ride),
is the
> divergence between the estimated power requirements using Crouch's
formula
> compared to that Gerr gives for displacement boats (no attribution
given)
> when applied to long, narrow, low-displacement boats.
(e.g. "Sneakeasy" and > its progeny)

Bill,

I don't think that the crossover from high D/L to long planing boats
is of any interest to us workers with small boats. They are so
different in concept that it would be best to start with a fresh
sheet for each one and ignore the other. That is, if I understood
your comments properly.

>
> For common boats of high D/L ratios and high horsepower engines,
the
> transition regime is not of much interest - they are either
extremely
> inefficient displacement boats at low speeds, or slightly less
inefficient
> planing boats at high speeds. The transition from one mode to the
other is
> rather ugly and occurs at a relatively low speed, combined with
radical
> changes in pitch and great big wakes, at least until they are on
plane. No
> one attempts to operate them in the transitional regime, at least
for any
> period of time.

"The transition from one mode to the other is
> rather ugly and occurs at a relatively low speed"

Actually, the transition starts at low (hull) speed but, for high
D/L, it can go up to 18 - 20kts, which is well into the planing
range for a light and well designed boat.

>
> It would seem that low D/L ratio boats could be usesfully operated
in the
> transitional speed regime, but I wonder if anyone has the data or
formulae to
> account for their performance in that range.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN

Now you have hit me where my interest lies. That is, planing at low
speed for efficiency. When attempting this on my own, I was
encouraged by some of Lindsay Lord's data that seemed to say that it
could be done if certain factors were done properly. I took his
data for aspect ratio, hull bottom shape, bottom loading and a few
others and designed a 24' pilothouse cruiser that runs nearly level
at all speeds up 24mph. Power is a 50hp four stroke.

Not too hard to do with a long skinned out hull, but mine is a
comfortable cruising boat for two that can operate in fairly rough
water. You can see it in the files section under "tom's boats" in
the Yahoo Wooden Powerboat group.

Since Lord was working with much larger and faster boats intended
for open ocean work, I had to do some extrapolating of some of the
data but it still gave pretty good results.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 9/29/02 6:44:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
harbinger@...writes:

> I have run many rpm vs mph curves (same as hp vs mph curve) for the
> purpose of prop selection and find that Crouch's formula is pretty
> good.
>

--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:

> Mind you, this is opinion is on the Internet and should be

regarded as highly

> suspect unless and until verified by someone more knowledgeable

than me. As

> old as I am, I'm still young enough so that the debate over

varying v.

> constant deadrise was decided long before I was cognizant that the

issue

> existed.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not so Bill, it still goes on and will continue. The many
different uses that boats are put to and the different conditions
under which they run plus personall prejudices will guarantee that
no one design will ever be "best".

Tom

--- In bolger@y..., wmrpage@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 9/27/02 11:08:41 AM Central Daylight Time,

hal@c...

> writes:
>
>
> > Does Gerr say how a planing bottom should be designed?
> >
>
> Per his "Propeller Handbook", quarter-beam buttock angle should be

less than

> 2 degrees and preferably 0 degrees. He defines "planing" as an S/L

ratio of

> 2.9 or higher. Speed in planing craft is largely (but not

entirely) a

> function of the lb./hp. ratio. (friction is proportionate to

wetted surface,

> which is at least one reason why prop-riding 3-point hydroplanes

are

> universally used in certain racing classes; a flat bottom is

requires less

> power than one with dead-rise; flow disruptions caused by "warped"

sections

> (and possibly(?) a "box cutwater") increase drag; aerodynamics

become

> increasingly important with high speeds; etc.)
>
> Gerr doesn't give a minimum lb./hp. ratio for planing boats, and

his graph

> for Crouch's formula goes all the way out to 60#/hp., but I'm

guessing that

> most planing craft come in at 30#/hp. or less - generally to be

useful, they

> have to be "planing" well below their maximum speed.
>
> The formulae provided allow one to calculate maximum speeds

attainable for a

> given design and the power required to do so, depending on S/L,

D/L and

> lb./hp., but they do not give any guidance on whether any

particular design

> will be manageable at speed. (i.e. the formulae will provide

estimates of how

> fast "Sneakeasy" will go for a given load and horsepower. They

will not give

> any information as to whether it will "skid" or "trip" and roll

over or

> otherwise behave in a dangerous fashion at speed.)
>
> I believe that the formulae given by Gerr are empirically derived.

I have

> wasted many a pleasurable hour graphing hp. v. kts. for

hypothetical boats on

> Excel using both his displacement formula and Crouch's formula.

For low D/L

> boats, which can operate in both modes efficiently, I see no

obvious

> relationship between where the two curves cut each other and the

design

> parameters. This leads me to suspect that that empirically derived

formulae

> may not accurately predict the performance of low D/L boats at

high S/L

> ratios at intermediate speeds where a transition is taking place

from one

> mode to the other.
>
> Ciao for Niao,
> Bill in MN
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill,

I have not found that the S/L is of any use at all in determining
whether boats are planing unless the boats are very similar in their
other ratios. Gerr does recommend a lbs/hp ratio of 25 for
reliable planing but I think this is too limited a look at the
problem although most boats today are at least this powerful.

Bottom loading in lbs/sq ft is just as important as lbs/hp and says
a lot more about a planing hull than D/L. Both bottom loading and
power to weight ratios should be looked at together and both should
be low if the boat is to plane eficiently. There is much trade off
made between these factors and most of todays commercially built
boats go the high power route and ignore efficiency because of cheap
gas, availability of big engines and an uneducated public. Things
were different 75 years ago and boats were more efficient then
because they had to be or they would not plane at all.

I have run many rpm vs mph curves (same as hp vs mph curve) for the
purpose of prop selection and find that Crouch's formula is pretty
good.

In a message dated 9/28/02 9:29:26 PM Central Daylight Time,
harbinger@...writes:

> This brings up an interesting thought that has not been discussed by
> anyone that I have read about describing the warped hull. That is,
> is the warp generated by curving the center (keel) part of the hull
> up or by turning the chine part of the hull down? Both are warped
> bottoms but I think they would behave differently.

Bottoms can be "warped" in any number of ways. However, I THINK that the
controversy about "monohedron" v. "warped" bottoms was limited to whether it
was preferable to have decreasing deadrise from forward to aft in the area
that the hull planed on, or constant deadrise.

"V"-bottomed hulls typically have a great degree of deadrise forward, to
reduce impact loads and "pounding'" when driving into waves, and much less
deadrise aft, to promote efficient planing. ("Deep-V" hulls are an exception,
there considerable and constant deadrise is carried aft to further reduce
impact loads at high speeds in rough water.)

Many, if not most, of "early" planing boat designs made the transition from
"Deep-V" at the bow to shallow deadrise gradually and continually from bow to
stern. "Monohedron" hulls, by comparison, made the transition from the bow to
the forward section of the hull making contact with the water at plane. From
there aft, the deadrise remained constant. This has evidently been determined
empirically to be more efficient than varying deadrise, but I've never seen
an explanation of why this is the case that I could grasp.

In any case, the amount of decrease in deadrise in the aft 1/3 or so of most
craft with varying deadrise was relatively small, the amount of deadrise
pretty modest, and the contact area of the hull is highly variable, depending
upon load, speed and sea conditions, so I think that the difference in
performance is more a matter of degree than any "bright line".

Mind you, this is opinion is on the Internet and should be regarded as highly
suspect unless and until verified by someone more knowledgeable than me. As
old as I am, I'm still young enough so that the debate over varying v.
constant deadrise was decided long before I was cognizant that the issue
existed.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 9/27/02 11:08:41 AM Central Daylight Time,hal@...
writes:

> Does Gerr say how a planing bottom should be designed?
>

Per his "Propeller Handbook", quarter-beam buttock angle should be less than
2 degrees and preferably 0 degrees. He defines "planing" as an S/L ratio of
2.9 or higher. Speed in planing craft is largely (but not entirely) a
function of the lb./hp. ratio. (friction is proportionate to wetted surface,
which is at least one reason why prop-riding 3-point hydroplanes are
universally used in certain racing classes; a flat bottom is requires less
power than one with dead-rise; flow disruptions caused by "warped" sections
(and possibly(?) a "box cutwater") increase drag; aerodynamics become
increasingly important with high speeds; etc.)

Gerr doesn't give a minimum lb./hp. ratio for planing boats, and his graph
for Crouch's formula goes all the way out to 60#/hp., but I'm guessing that
most planing craft come in at 30#/hp. or less - generally to be useful, they
have to be "planing" well below their maximum speed.

The formulae provided allow one to calculate maximum speeds attainable for a
given design and the power required to do so, depending on S/L, D/L and
lb./hp., but they do not give any guidance on whether any particular design
will be manageable at speed. (i.e. the formulae will provide estimates of how
fast "Sneakeasy" will go for a given load and horsepower. They will not give
any information as to whether it will "skid" or "trip" and roll over or
otherwise behave in a dangerous fashion at speed.)

I believe that the formulae given by Gerr are empirically derived. I have
wasted many a pleasurable hour graphing hp. v. kts. for hypothetical boats on
Excel using both his displacement formula and Crouch's formula. For low D/L
boats, which can operate in both modes efficiently, I see no obvious
relationship between where the two curves cut each other and the design
parameters. This leads me to suspect that that empirically derived formulae
may not accurately predict the performance of low D/L boats at high S/L
ratios at intermediate speeds where a transition is taking place from one
mode to the other.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm willing to believe this works, but it is NOT surface tension.
Let's say that the surface tension in the glass is capable of
supporting 1 oz. (SWAG) and the diameter is 2.5". Surface tension is
an edge effect and will go up proportionally to the perimeter of the
immersed object. So a boat with a 12' waterline will experience less
than 4 lbs of force from this. What you probably are doing is changing
the PRESSURE under the hull. If you can change this by 1psi under the
above mentioned boat with 12' waterline (let's suppose 5' beam), you
will get on the order of 45 lbs of force. I don't know if the pressure
is changed just by adding air or if it's because the flow changes.
I'll bet that the ride improves because you are providing a
lightweight, compressible layer instead of the incompressible, massive
water.

The MASS of the water is the problem, not the surface tension.
If it was surface tension, speed wouldn't matter much, but
from water skiing (and falling) I know it does. Otherwise you could
protect the jumpers with a bottle of laundry detergent!

--- In bolger@y..., "John Cupp" <caj@k...> wrote:
snip to break the surface tension of
the
> water against the hull. Many experiments have been performed with
> boats carrying compressors that feed thousands of small holes with
> air to break the suction of the surface tension.
>
> I have a jeep with an air tank and a long 1/4 pipe with air hose
> that I unstuck other ATV's stuck in mud, a form of water and soil
> that exerts suction from surface tension. I hook up the winch and
> then stick the air pipe under the vehicle. It makes them move much
> faster and can also be used to pull boats out of mud banks on a
river.
snip
>
> So most of the suction is actually surface tension. One of the best
> ways to see surface tension is to fill a glass of water till you can
> see it actually form a dome at the top before it spills over the
> side. Most high bridge jumpers are killed from broken necks. If
water
> did not have surface tension it would not hurt someone traveling at
> near 100 mph as they hit it. Air also has surface tension but it is
> much harder to travel fast enough to cause the air surface tension
to
> harm humans.
>
snip

You guys are driving me crazy!
I too am looking for a different bottom for a Sneakeasy. My goal is to make the boat beamier maybe 6 ft - 21in wider. I have been warned about bow diving. I have posted several pics of boats from 1901 to 1923 at Bolger2 -- "Sneakeasy Hulls". These of course were the beginings of the Sneakeasy. Look at the bottoms and tell me whats going on. The 1909 is out of the water. Note the round curves where sides and bottoms meet. Are these boats just big canoes in their construction. They all have the square bow that is important to the Sneakeasy. Thanks
CCG
Jeff wrote:

> This brings up an interesting thought that has not been discussed

> anyone that I have read about describing the warped hull. That

is,

> is the warp generated by curving the center (keel) part of the

hull

> up or by turning the chine part of the hull down? Both are warped
> bottoms but I think they would behave differently.

Both actually, or pick one. I've seen designs where the chine is
designed to be at the waterline from amidships to the stern while
the keel is pulled up to flatten the run at the stern. This
actually creates a kind of warped run with rocker. There is a boat
called Moxie that does a little of both. So I think it's up to the
designer and how the boat is to be used, no general rule.

Jeff

Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
- To order 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.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Many new speed boats have small steps across the bottom to cause an
aerated effect in order to move the hull up on plane faster and
produce a higher top speed. The angle is very critical to enable the
air to freely flow under the hull to break the surface tension of the
water against the hull. Many experiments have been performed with
boats carrying compressors that feed thousands of small holes with
air to break the suction of the surface tension.

I have a jeep with an air tank and a long 1/4 pipe with air hose
that I unstuck other ATV's stuck in mud, a form of water and soil
that exerts suction from surface tension. I hook up the winch and
then stick the air pipe under the vehicle. It makes them move much
faster and can also be used to pull boats out of mud banks on a river.

A few small steps set to capture air and move it under the hull will
stop the suction effect of surface tension. It as I said before is an
exact science that can burn money at test tanks to perfect the
desired effect. Once made right the boat ride is fabulous since the
pounding you experience you feel is actually the effect of surface
tension of water hitting the hull. When you break that tension the
rough ride goes away. As an added effect the speed of the boat is
greatly enhanced because it is traveling on a cushion of water with
no surface tension to pierce.

So most of the suction is actually surface tension. One of the best
ways to see surface tension is to fill a glass of water till you can
see it actually form a dome at the top before it spills over the
side. Most high bridge jumpers are killed from broken necks. If water
did not have surface tension it would not hurt someone traveling at
near 100 mph as they hit it. Air also has surface tension but it is
much harder to travel fast enough to cause the air surface tension to
harm humans.

The next step is a hover craft or foils, a 30' sneakeasy with the
step chine will be capable of great straight line speed and if I
wanted a fancy quick turning boat I would build one that looked like
a giant pumpkin seed. The secrete of the sneakeasy is the style and I
would gladly trade fast corners for the style. There are many ways to
build a better boat than what PB&F designed but you lose the spirit
and the aesthetics, that's not a fair trade IMHO.

John

--- In bolger@y..., "tom28571" <harbinger@c...> wrote:
> --- In bolger@y..., <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
> >
> > > Gerr's denial of suction on the bottom of boats with
> > > non-parallel buttocks lines does not ring true to me. I am
> > > convinced that any convexity in the vertical plane on the
> > > bottom of a boat will
> > > generate a downward force which Lord called suction.
> > >
> >
> > One could aways do the experiment mentioned by Gerr. Drill a
> > hole in the bottom, bring the boat up to speed, pull the plug
> > and see if water shoots up at you.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Gerr says that he did drill holes in the bottom and wwater squirted
> up in all of them. Problem is, that does not prove his case.
>
> The fact that there is a net positive upward force does not proove
> that there is not some "suction" there. The net force can be the
> resultant from more than one source, both positive and negative.
> Longitudinal convexity (rocker) in the aft bottom of a boat will
> introduce some negative lift (suction) although the net force will
> still be positive. While the boat does not sink, the stern squats
> lower than it might with a straight run in the bottom.
>
> This brings up an interesting thought that has not been discussed
by
> anyone that I have read about describing the warped hull. That is,
> is the warp generated by curving the center (keel) part of the hull
> up or by turning the chine part of the hull down? Both are warped
> bottoms but I think they would behave differently.

> This brings up an interesting thought that has not been discussed

> anyone that I have read about describing the warped hull. That

is,

> is the warp generated by curving the center (keel) part of the

hull

> up or by turning the chine part of the hull down? Both are warped
> bottoms but I think they would behave differently.

--- In bolger@y..., <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:

>
> > Gerr's denial of suction on the bottom of boats with
> > non-parallel buttocks lines does not ring true to me. I am
> > convinced that any convexity in the vertical plane on the
> > bottom of a boat will
> > generate a downward force which Lord called suction.
> >
>
> One could aways do the experiment mentioned by Gerr. Drill a
> hole in the bottom, bring the boat up to speed, pull the plug
> and see if water shoots up at you.
>
> Jeff

Gerr says that he did drill holes in the bottom and wwater squirted
up in all of them. Problem is, that does not prove his case.

The fact that there is a net positive upward force does not proove
that there is not some "suction" there. The net force can be the
resultant from more than one source, both positive and negative.
Longitudinal convexity (rocker) in the aft bottom of a boat will
introduce some negative lift (suction) although the net force will
still be positive. While the boat does not sink, the stern squats
lower than it might with a straight run in the bottom.

This brings up an interesting thought that has not been discussed by
anyone that I have read about describing the warped hull. That is,
is the warp generated by curving the center (keel) part of the hull
up or by turning the chine part of the hull down? Both are warped
bottoms but I think they would behave differently.

Not so fast. To have valid results you would need to drill a bunch of
holes in different places and to use both hull types. I wouldn't be
surprised if there was "suction" on ALL of them.

--- In bolger@y..., <boatbuilding@g...> wrote:
>
> > Gerr's denial of suction on the bottom of boats with
> > non-parallel buttocks lines does not ring true to me. I am
> > convinced that any convexity in the vertical plane on the
> > bottom of a boat will
> > generate a downward force which Lord called suction.
> >
>
> One could aways do the experiment mentioned by Gerr. Drill a
> hole in the bottom, bring the boat up to speed, pull the plug
> and see if water shoots up at you.
>
> Jeff

> Gerr's denial of suction on the bottom of boats with
> non-parallel buttocks lines does not ring true to me. I am
> convinced that any convexity in the vertical plane on the
> bottom of a boat will
> generate a downward force which Lord called suction.
>

One could aways do the experiment mentioned by Gerr. Drill a
hole in the bottom, bring the boat up to speed, pull the plug
and see if water shoots up at you.

Jeff

--- In bolger@y..., Chris Lasdauskas <cml@t...> wrote:

>
>
> Hal Lynch wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 07:53 AM, Chris Lasdauskas

wrote:

> >
> > > According to Gerr ("The Nature of Boats" pp 137-8) Lord was

wrong about

> > > that - no suction is produced, but energy is used getting the

water to

> > > twist as it flows past the hull, so his conclusion that warped

planes

> > > are inefficient is correct. Gerr goes on to point out that

they may

> > > still be desirable (at least in moderate forms) for other

reasons -

> > > keeping the nose down (the opposite of what Lord predicts);

moving the

> > > centre of bouyancy aft; making room for heavy engines and gear

aft -

> > > probably desirable in a PT boat.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > Does Gerr say how a planing bottom should be designed?
> >
> > hal
>
> Hi Hal,
> yes, but not in any one place! He builds up to it through

examining

> different example boats, then later by examining different topics.

For

> instance, in a chapter called "The Ultimate Sportfisherman" he

examines

> desirable characteristics for that sort of vessel, and his

solution (the

> Off Soundings 34). He discusses beam, entry shape, chine shape and

size

> and the sections.No simnple formaulae or anything like that, but

he does

> mention "The buttock angles in the run for both the chine and the

hull

> have been adjusted to give proper planing trim (approximately 4 to

> degrees)..." (p67).
>
> It is an excellent book and very easy to read - it is actually

amusing -

> I recommend you buy or borrow a copy :)
>
> Chris

I enjoy reading Gerr's book and there is much to learn from him but
perhaps his criticism of Lord's work is misplaced. Gerr's amusing
stories are not a substitute for the wealth of data in Lord's book.
it is easy to take a statement out of context when it is surrounded
by so much qualifying material. Lord was working on fast boats
where the warped plane bottom is apparently inferior to his
monohedron type. In tests that I have run on towing models, the
warped plane has had a tendency to yaw instability at high speed.
The warped plane bottom may get up on plane a bit quicker but can
give handling or steering problems at high speed.

Gerr's denial of suction on the bottom of boats with non-parallel
buttocks lines does not ring true to me. I am convinced that any
convexity in the vertical plane on the bottom of a boat will
generate a downward force which Lord called suction.

Hal Lynch wrote:

>
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 07:53 AM, Chris Lasdauskas wrote:
>
> > According to Gerr ("The Nature of Boats" pp 137-8) Lord was wrong about
> > that - no suction is produced, but energy is used getting the water to
> > twist as it flows past the hull, so his conclusion that warped planes
> > are inefficient is correct. Gerr goes on to point out that they may
> > still be desirable (at least in moderate forms) for other reasons -
> > keeping the nose down (the opposite of what Lord predicts); moving the
> > centre of bouyancy aft; making room for heavy engines and gear aft -
> > probably desirable in a PT boat.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Does Gerr say how a planing bottom should be designed?
>
> hal

Hi Hal,
yes, but not in any one place! He builds up to it through examining
different example boats, then later by examining different topics. For
instance, in a chapter called "The Ultimate Sportfisherman" he examines
desirable characteristics for that sort of vessel, and his solution (the
Off Soundings 34). He discusses beam, entry shape, chine shape and size
and the sections.No simnple formaulae or anything like that, but he does
mention "The buttock angles in the run for both the chine and the hull
have been adjusted to give proper planing trim (approximately 4 to 5
degrees)..." (p67).

It is an excellent book and very easy to read - it is actually amusing -
I recommend you buy or borrow a copy :)

Chris

On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 07:53 AM, Chris Lasdauskas wrote:

> According to Gerr ("The Nature of Boats" pp 137-8) Lord was wrong about
> that - no suction is produced, but energy is used getting the water to
> twist as it flows past the hull, so his conclusion that warped planes
> are inefficient is correct. Gerr goes on to point out that they may
> still be desirable (at least in moderate forms) for other reasons -
> keeping the nose down (the opposite of what Lord predicts); moving the
> centre of bouyancy aft; making room for heavy engines and gear aft -
> probably desirable in a PT boat.
>
> Chris

Does Gerr say how a planing bottom should be designed?

hal

In a message dated 9/23/02 11:55:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
sneakeasy2002@...writes:

> Why do you anticipate a noise problem?

I don't anticipate a noise problem. I see a great opportunity for silencing
your outboard - IMHO, they can't be too quiet! Putting a box over the motor
will give you the opportunity to make it REALLY quiet! I've read that new
Honda 4-strokes and the like are already very quiet, which would be great if
your budget runs to such. My experience is limited to much older 2-stroke
Johnson's and Mercury's. With those, it is usually impossible to carry on a
real conversation above idle speed.

As far as exhaust goes, most of the outboards I've had experience with had a
relief exhaust port above water to handle the exhaust when idling or
reversing. (I've never checked on the 20 yr. old Mercury I bought this
Spring.) Even if all the exhaust goes through the propeller all of the time,
under those conditions the gases are probably going to surface in or near the
"well". If you enclose the rear end in a "drake-tail" (an EXCELLENT aesthetic
choice, IMHO!) you may run the risk of trapping exhuast gases in the well
area. I certainly don't know if it would or not. If it did, it might starve
the engine of O2 by diluting the incoming air with CO, CO2, NOx, and unburned
oil which might (just maybe) impair engine operating efficiency. If
ventilation was such that the exhaust gases were drawn forward under the
sedan top, they might impair boat operator's efficiency - a more serious
matter. This is not an objection to the proposal. If it does pose problems,
I'm sure that contriving a solution wouldn't be very difficult. Properly
contrived passive vents might do the job, if they would be required at all.
I'd just be alert to the potential problem

As long as you are going to mount the outboard on the transom located as
designed, I can't see why altering the freeboard, installing hatches, etc.
would have any material effect on performance, other than the extra weight,
which obviously should be kept to the minimum consistent with adequate
strength. Changes in the beam, bottom configuration and using a heavier and
more powerful motor are a different matter. At that point, you become a
designer, even if a frankly derivative one, and proceed at your own peril and
opportunity.

Although it would violate one of Bolger's "rules" (i.e. keep that smelly,
oily, obnoxious gas tank out of the passenger compartment), locating the gas
tanks forward might be an option to help keep the tail from dragging with
full tanks. This might not be a problem if the beam is increased or if
low-speed, low-wake performance is not an objective.

This sounds like a worthwhile project to me. It certainly seems like it would
be a lot more fun than the used-boat rehabilitation project I have planned
for this winter.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hal Lynch wrote:

>
> I have not seen Bootleggers bottom but Lord in his book says that most
> WWII PT boats had poor bottoms for performance. You will notice most
> if not all PTs had a warped plane bottom, IE the running lines
> aft all had a different angle. Lord says the warped plane creates a
> lot of suction at speed.

According to Gerr ("The Nature of Boats" pp 137-8) Lord was wrong about
that - no suction is produced, but energy is used getting the water to
twist as it flows past the hull, so his conclusion that warped planes
are inefficient is correct. Gerr goes on to point out that they may
still be desirable (at least in moderate forms) for other reasons -
keeping the nose down (the opposite of what Lord predicts); moving the
centre of bouyancy aft; making room for heavy engines and gear aft -
probably desirable in a PT boat.

Chris

Thanks I agree. The ability to tilt the motor in a well is a problem. However exhaust should not be with through the prop exhaust. I can then run the Drake Tail clear accross the stern. Would that be a problem? Should look great. Why do you anticipate a noise problem? I plan to add a removeable sedan top leaving the mortor well outside the cabin.
CCG
wmrpage@...wrote:In a message dated 9/21/02 3:29:43 AM Central Daylight Time,
sneakeasy2002@...writes:

> Next I want to put the outboard in a motor well at the stern and cover it to
> look like an inboard. Will that work? I will build model first.

It will depend upon the height of the motorhead, the height of its mounting
(normally the transom height) and your freeboard, plus whatever you can
"fudge" by crowning the aft deck and/or what other aesthetic dodges strike
your fancy.

In this playing this game, everything depends upon the height of the
powerhead. That will vary a great deal depending upon the particular motor
you use.

One couple of concerns would be the supply of fresh air to the engine, and
exhaust of the engine's exhaust to that it doesn't perturb, or worse, the
occupants. Somewhere in Bolger's works, I believe, is a reference to someone
who became overcome by CO while on a flying bridge of a boat. (This seems
unlikely. Perhaps my memory is failing!)

Apart from aesthetics for bystanders, a significant virtue of such a scheme
would be that it would permit the use of sound deadening materials, which
would improve the aesthetic experience of users.

This July I attended a boat show in my home town which included a mid-'50's
fiberglass "Falls Flyer" (Little Falls, MN boatworks). It featured a molded,
"streamlined" fiberglass hood for the outboard motor. The owner's info sheet
claimed it was the only (or one of a very small number) of exemplars still
existing. One could see why. The styling of a "Falls Flyer" is such that no
one with any aesthetic taste would have considered buying one new (IMHO -
there are probably Bayliners that are worse), but evidently this big "pimple"
over the stern was more than even those who thought the "Falls Flyer" to be
the height of "streamlined" design at the time could stomach.

Of course, at the time of production, the selection of sufficiently
high-powered outboard powerplants was limited to the very wide
Johnson/Evinrude V-4's and the very tall 6 cyl. Mercurys. The pimple may have
been designed to disguise/quiet either choice, as the Little Falls boatworks
probably sold boats only, not the boat+motor+trailer packages as the norm
today. So perhaps the "pimple" was larger than it needed to be for the
optimum motor combination. In any case, it was a huge and unattractive
excresence, only now (partially) redeemed by its age and rarity.

I don't know how much horsepower you might be considering. While on the
freeway to and from the lake this Summer, I have observed some 50 hp.
(judging from the badges on the covers) OMC motors on boats being trailered.
I don't think that the motors were new or state-of-the-art, and I'm sure they
were conventional 2-strokes. Judging from appearances, they looked to be 1/2
the height, and presumably 1/2 the weight, of the 20 yr. old "40 hp" (35 hp
at the prop) Mercury that is on the boat I bought this Spring. One of those
OMC motors, especially if fitted with a short-shaft, if such were ever
produced, would need a relatively low rear deck to be concealed.

In any case, I think that the cover you contrive should allow you to tilt up
the motor for launching, landing, clearing weeds of the prop, etc. A slop
well or some equivalent (e.g. bracket mounting aft of the transom) would be a
good idea, especially with a short-shaft motor.

Before wooden powerboat building died in my part of the country, it was
common for builders to extend the bottom planks 6" - 10" aft of the transom
on either side of the opening for the outboard to provide additional planing
surface. These surfaces were supported by metal brackets and added nothing to
the bouyance of the boats, although I'm sure they served their intended
purpose. The "beaver-tails" or whatever they are called, that Bolger
appended to the transom of "Sneakeasy", may perform a similar function, with
the added benefit of providing some additional flotation aft. (I don't think
they would function very well while attempting to back in any kind of chop,
however.) I'm inclined to think that extending the topsides full height aft
to where the "beaver-tails' end and ditto on each side of the motorwell, with
subsidiary transoms on each flank so constructed would be a functionally
better design.

Ciao for Niao,
Bill in MN

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
- To order 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.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes I agree I was going to icrease freeboard 6" and still cover it with a teak box with matching box for 3 6gal tanks stacked on 1 side and matching box for cooler on the other side. I will have to bite bite the bullet on motor well and just make it attractive. My question is , will it affect performance?
CCG
Hal Lynch wrote:

On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 02:27 AM, Chance Curtis wrote:

>
> I plan on spending the winter designing a new Sneakeasy with a new
> hull design. I am looking at the Baby Bootlegger the was also used on
> the WW ll PT Boats. I want to keep the lengh but widen it to 5 maybe 6
> ft. Can I do that? Next I want to put the outboard in a motor well at
> the stern and cover it to look like an inboard. Will that work? I
> will build model first.

I have not seen Bootleggers bottom but Lord in his book says that most
WWII PT boats had poor bottoms for performance. You will notice most
if not all PTs had a warped plane bottom, IE the running lines
aft all had a different angle. Lord says the warped plane creates a
lot of
suction at speed.

Using the formula for aspect ratio A = C/B set the ratio = to 3.5. The
entrance of the stem about 26' from the transom (tails). The entrance
of the chine about 13'. This gives a B of about 19.5'. Solving for C
I get a max chine width of about 6.8 feet. Unless of course I am
suffering
from Monday morning math.

Putting the outboard in a well may cause a bump over the well, if you
put a lid on it of course. Sneakeasy doesn't have a lot of freeboard.
Try it and see. Enjoy.

hal

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
- To order 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.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Saturday, September 21, 2002, at 02:27 AM, Chance Curtis wrote:

>
> I plan on spending the winter designing a new Sneakeasy with a new
> hull design. I am looking at the Baby Bootlegger the was also used on
> the WW ll PT Boats. I want to keep the lengh but widen it to 5 maybe 6
> ft. Can I do that? Next I want to put the outboard in a motor well at
> the stern and cover it to look like an inboard. Will that work? I
> will build model first.

I have not seen Bootleggers bottom but Lord in his book says that most
WWII PT boats had poor bottoms for performance. You will notice most
if not all PTs had a warped plane bottom, IE the running lines
aft all had a different angle. Lord says the warped plane creates a
lot of
suction at speed.

Using the formula for aspect ratio A = C/B set the ratio = to 3.5. The
entrance of the stem about 26' from the transom (tails). The entrance
of the chine about 13'. This gives a B of about 19.5'. Solving for C
I get a max chine width of about 6.8 feet. Unless of course I am
suffering
from Monday morning math.

Putting the outboard in a well may cause a bump over the well, if you
put a lid on it of course. Sneakeasy doesn't have a lot of freeboard.
Try it and see. Enjoy.

hal

In a message dated 9/21/02 3:29:43 AM Central Daylight Time,
sneakeasy2002@...writes:

> Next I want to put the outboard in a motor well at the stern and cover it to
> look like an inboard. Will that work? I will build model first.

I plan on spending the winter designing a new Sneakeasy with a new hull design. I am looking at the Baby Bootlegger the was also used on the WW ll PT Boats. I want to keep the lengh but widen it to 5 maybe 6 ft. Can I do that? Next I want to put the outboard in a motor well at the stern and cover it to look like an inboard. Will that work? I will build model first.
CCG
Hal Lynch wrote:

On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 03:30 AM, Chance Curtis wrote:

>
> Wow !!! Thanks alot. Do you consider the sneakeasy a displacemrnt hull
> or planing hull as designed by PCB? With a different bottom will it
> still be a sneakeasy?
> Thanks
> CCG

Sneakeasy is a planing hull. Any boat that light with a flat bottom
will
plane. When I think of a planing boat I think of something fast but
Bolger
himself has said that Sneakeasy was not designed for high speed or high
power.

With a different bottom it will not be a Sneakeasy. It will be your
design.
Give it your own name.

I love the "look" of Sneakeasy. With a more up to date bottom it should
make a great boat. If I can find the time I would like to design a new
bottom, making minimal changes to the top, myself.

hal

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
- To order 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.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 03:30 AM, Chance Curtis wrote:

>
> Wow !!! Thanks alot. Do you consider the sneakeasy a displacemrnt hull
> or planing hull as designed by PCB? With a different bottom will it
> still be a sneakeasy?
> Thanks
> CCG

Sneakeasy is a planing hull. Any boat that light with a flat bottom
will
plane. When I think of a planing boat I think of something fast but
Bolger
himself has said that Sneakeasy was not designed for high speed or high
power.

With a different bottom it will not be a Sneakeasy. It will be your
design.
Give it your own name.

I love the "look" of Sneakeasy. With a more up to date bottom it should
make a great boat. If I can find the time I would like to design a new
bottom, making minimal changes to the top, myself.

hal

I know you were asking someone else, but I've had a ride in a
Sneakeasy and it's definitely not a displacement hull, though it
doesn't suffer as much as most planing boats when slowed down. It
seems to plane just fine. Just because it isn't meant for Mach 3
doesn't mean it isn't a planing hull.

I think if one wanted a classy displacement hull it might be amusing
to make two Sneakeasy bows stuck together.

--- In bolger@y..., Chance Curtis <sneakeasy2002@y...> wrote:
>
> Wow !!! Thanks alot. Do you consider the sneakeasy a displacemrnt
hull or planing hull as designed by PCB? With a different bottom will
it still be a sneakeasy?
> Thanks
> CCG
snip

Wow !!! Thanks alot. Do you consider the sneakeasy a displacemrnt hull or planing hull as designed by PCB? With a different bottom will it still be a sneakeasy?
Thanks
CCG

Hal Lynch wrote:At last I have put something together to help those
who want a faster safer Sneakeasy.

Look in the files on Bolger2 for a folder called:

Planing boat design rules.

In the folder you will find the first of, I hope, a series of
rules for designing a fast safe bottom for planing power boats.

The information in the "rules" is my understanding of what
Lindsay Lord is saying in his book "The Naval Architecture
of Planing Hulls".

hal

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

Bolger rules!!!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, or flogging dead horses
- stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts and <snip> away
- To order 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.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At last I have put something together to help those
who want a faster safer Sneakeasy.

Look in the files on Bolger2 for a folder called:

Planing boat design rules.

In the folder you will find the first of, I hope, a series of
rules for designing a fast safe bottom for planing power boats.

The information in the "rules" is my understanding of what
Lindsay Lord is saying in his book "The Naval Architecture
of Planing Hulls".

hal

--- In bolger@y..., "pseudospark" <shansen@t...> wrote:

> I'm assuming you are talking about the Bolger Storm Petrel, not the
> British design of the same name.
>
> My SP is just getting underway with the cutting of some pieces. I
> won't have room in the garage to actually start assembly until
> sometime in the fall.
>
> As far as I know only one Storm Petrel has been built, the one

owned

> until recently by Marc Lander. His boat is now in Minnesota.

There's

> also one under construction in the UK but I've not heard anything

> that one in a while.
>
> My only mod of any significance will be the keel: Bolger approved

> a shallower thick ply keel with lead inserts to result in the same
> mass as the steel plate. The rudder will be the same depth of the
> keel and PCB recommended an end plate on the rudder as in his

Bobcat.

>
> Keep us informed if you start building.
>
> Steve Hansen

Yes I am referring to the PCB Storm Petrel. Please post construction
pics as you progress?

I'm assuming you are talking about the Bolger Storm Petrel, not the
British design of the same name.

My SP is just getting underway with the cutting of some pieces. I
won't have room in the garage to actually start assembly until
sometime in the fall.

As far as I know only one Storm Petrel has been built, the one owned
until recently by Marc Lander. His boat is now in Minnesota. There's
also one under construction in the UK but I've not heard anything on
that one in a while.

My only mod of any significance will be the keel: Bolger approved of
a shallower thick ply keel with lead inserts to result in the same
mass as the steel plate. The rudder will be the same depth of the
keel and PCB recommended an end plate on the rudder as in his Bobcat.

Keep us informed if you start building.

Steve Hansen

Am fascinated with the Storm Petrel.

I have built:
2 Elegant Punts
2 Teals
1 June Bug (another in process)
1 Zephyr

I had built the Zephyr intending to get to know the lateen rig so
that I could later use it on the Storm Petrel. Then my son and I
were going to sail it from Boston, MA to Cape Sable Island, Nova
Scotia, crossing the Bay of Fundy.

Found that the Zephyr, while a great boat, was too big and cumbersome
to be trailered by one person easily. Sold it.

Many years later, I find myself near retirement, encroaching
arthritis in my left hip, in the middle of another June Bug, and
reading about the Petrel here online!

Not too late to ressurrect a dream is it?

I have looked at the Petrel pics online here, and wish there were
more, especially full view.

Some ideas/questions/comments:

Would be nice to have a rig whose spars could be stowed easily on
board; perhaps similar to the sprit rig specified as an alternate for
the Cartopper.

Keel: How about some sheet lead, used as flashing in the roofing
trade, sandwiched between layers of plywood?

Perhaps a group of Petrel People?

--- In bolger@y..., "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:

> Not to blow my own horn, but I have speculated a couple of times
> that if he were to revisit Storm Petrel, PCB would use a
> Micro-type keel instead of the plate.

Peter,

I do remember you saying that and you are probably correct. One
disadvantage of the fairly thin steel plate is its susceptability to
getting bent. Otherwise, I have about enough lead on hand to
fabricate a ply/lead/fiberglas keel and don't have to forage around
for a piece of flat steel and a person with a cutting torch.

Steve Hansen

> I presented PCB with a shallower keel of ply with lead
> ballast (same mass and weight distribution as the plate)
> and he came back with some

Not to blow my own horn, but I have speculated a couple of times that
if he were to revisit Storm Petral, PCB would use a Micro-type keel
instead of the plate. It sounds like you've worked it out between
you. It should be a great boat for day outings. Keep us up to date.

Peter

As my third homebuilt boat project I've been vacillating between
Bolger's 16 ft. Storm Petrel motorsailer #337 and a modified version
of Jim Michalak's Sow's Ear cabin power boat. I resolved this dilemma
when, a few weeks ago, I fell in love with, and purchased, a Holby
Bristol Skiff, a sweet 17 ft. fiberglass center console boat that I
guess would be classed as a semi-dory. That took care of the power
boat side of things and I'm getting some instant gratification.
(Well, near instant - I don't pick it up until mid August.)

Today I took a long lunch hour and ran down to Boulter Plywood, just
north of Boston, and picked up a small stack of okoume with which to
build Storm Petrel. If past projects are any indication, this will be
completed sometime in late 2003.

The only real change I'm planning to make concerns the keel. The
original is a 3/8" thick steel plate that is about 15 inches deep. I
presented PCB with a shallower keel of ply with lead ballast (same
mass and weight distribution as the plate) and he came back with some
additional doodles on my sketch. This will make the boat easier to
launch and beach.

Steve Hansen

I have made a stab at a web page for my boat projects including the
stretched CSD Pirogue, the Shell Swifty 14 with some status on the
modifications (more to come) and a start at the Storm Petrel. I
haven't linked it from my "Bell Jar" homepage but you can get there
at www.tiac.net/users/shansen/belljar/boat.htm.

Finding photos was a real chore (my wife did most of the searching).
Lots of pictures taken from boats, relatively few of the boats.

I'll add to it as time permits.

Steve Hansen

> Steve:
>
> Please post the urls.
>
> Chuck

Chuck,

The boat stuff will be on my vacuum technology web site at
www.tiac.net/users/shansen/belljar. However, unless you are
interested in vacuum apparatus, wait a couple of weeks. I'll post a
note here when it's ready.

Steve

> I run a website for technical hobbyists and I've also started work on
> a site with pictures of my past/current boat projects (Bolger/CSD
> Pirogue and Shell Swifty 14, highly modified). I'll also include
> status on the Storm Petrel assuming that I actually build it.
>
> Steve Hansen

Steve:

Please post the urls.

Chuck

As a follow-up to my post #7737 of a bit over a week ago, I sent a
fax to Phil Bolger to see if the Storm Petrel (#337) plans were now
available. The next day I got a reply that the plans were available
as 2 17x22 sheets with key and specs for $50. Apparently "& Friends"
has gotten Phil more organized. I described my goals with the boat
and Phil seemed to think that they were in line with the
characteristics of the design.

Today I got the plans and will begin making a model tonight. I'll do
it pretty much per the plans with maybe a couple of options for the
hatch (including a flat/flush one that would render the deck to be
useful as a fly fishing platform) and I'm tinkering with some ideas
for the keel.

I run a website for technical hobbyists and I've also started work on
a site with pictures of my past/current boat projects (Bolger/CSD
Pirogue and Shell Swifty 14, highly modified). I'll also include
status on the Storm Petrel assuming that I actually build it.

Steve Hansen

I just found this group a couple of days ago. So far I've gone
through perhaps 40% of the postings.

What caught my eye was the discussion on the Storm Petrel. I got sort
of fascinated by the design about 11 or 12 years ago (whenever I got
hold of the issue of SBJ with the relevant Bolger cartoon). I wrote
to Phil about the boat and the answer was rather vague about the
design but he gave the impression that it was probably rather
mediocre and not worth the effort of building.

I then went on to build a Shell 14' Swifty (nice boat) and then a CSD
Pirogue, stretched to about 19 ft. (Bernie Wolfard wrote up the boat
in one of his last newsletters and there was a one-page article about
it in an early '80s MAIB). With oars, paddles, or an electric this
remains our family's favorite boat and we use if frequently on
streams, Great Bay (NH) and other protected areas. Never did put a
sail on it (my wife hates things that make boats tip unexpectedly).

Still sort of like the Storm Petrel idea though and the sedateness
under sail and the small motor option would probably suit my wife
just fine.

Steve Hansen