Re: [bolger] DIY Boat Design
> Chuck --David:
>
> Did you learn anything from your misadventure?
> <snip>
> David
One thing I learned is to do your gambling on a small boat. My disaster was
small and not too expensive. You are right though, about the siren-like
lure of the designer/builder label. I still think about it, and might even
try it again, someday. This time I will have the experience of the one
failure, and a lot more general knowledge about boats.
Good luck on the Chesapeake sharpie.
Chuck
Petes right the Brick is an answer. Another might be a
trad dory which with good freeboard can give real volume
in a balanced hull buildable without plans. The process was
described, complete with photo sequence, in Woodenboat
Magazine about 1-2 years ago.
Which I guess is a plan anyway!
If you (or anyone) are
interested in this approach contact me off list and I'll dig
up the issue number (non-Bolger = off list)
Also if the punts so narrow you may as well get a nice looking,
faster punt with a sharp end ie a pirouge!
Jeff Gilbert
jgilbert@...
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/designs.htm
----- Original Messages -----
Subject: [bolger] Re: Computing Displacement
1>>>> I like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt,
but I need a larger boat.
2>>>>>>>> (PW)
Given the very large number of designs out there for punts of
different descriptions, why not keep looking. I built an Elegant
Punt, and I was not especially pleased with it. It is very narrow and
high-sided, compared with what I was used to in a yacht tender.
If you need more capacity, have a look at the Brick.
Peter
trad dory which with good freeboard can give real volume
in a balanced hull buildable without plans. The process was
described, complete with photo sequence, in Woodenboat
Magazine about 1-2 years ago.
Which I guess is a plan anyway!
If you (or anyone) are
interested in this approach contact me off list and I'll dig
up the issue number (non-Bolger = off list)
Also if the punts so narrow you may as well get a nice looking,
faster punt with a sharp end ie a pirouge!
Jeff Gilbert
jgilbert@...
http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/designs.htm
----- Original Messages -----
Subject: [bolger] Re: Computing Displacement
1>>>> I like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt,
but I need a larger boat.
2>>>>>>>> (PW)
Given the very large number of designs out there for punts of
different descriptions, why not keep looking. I built an Elegant
Punt, and I was not especially pleased with it. It is very narrow and
high-sided, compared with what I was used to in a yacht tender.
If you need more capacity, have a look at the Brick.
Peter
Modifying plans is tricky. It is more prudent to find an existing design
that suits your needs. I once built a boat that I had designed myself. It
was a total disaster - a big waste of time and materials. I am not saying
that that will be your fate, but you might take a look at Jim Michalak's
Jonsboat:
http://homepages.apci.net/~michalak/15jun00.htm#JONSBOAT
Chuck
that suits your needs. I once built a boat that I had designed myself. It
was a total disaster - a big waste of time and materials. I am not saying
that that will be your fate, but you might take a look at Jim Michalak's
Jonsboat:
http://homepages.apci.net/~michalak/15jun00.htm#JONSBOAT
Chuck
>
> I am new to the group and I have never built a boat. I am finding the
> emails interesting to say the least. I have owned several
> "Tupperware" and metal boats, but I want to build one of my own. I
> want a Punt because of the flat bottom and the squared off ends. I
> like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt, but I need a larger boat.
> Therefore, I am considering the bastardization of a proven design. I
> bought the plans from "Dynamite" Payson for the Elegant Punt and I am
> playing with the idea of widening the beam from 37" to 46" across the
> bottom of the boat and lengthening the overall boat by 48".
> Additionally, I will probably leave the line of the shear, straight,
> instead of putting in the curve from the plans. I am in no way a
> physics or geometry major and it seems like some of you are (or should
> be). However, when I have made these changes to the plans and built
> them into models, the outcome looks like a boat I would like to fish
> out of on the local lakes, here, in Washington state.
>
> My concern, and or questions are whether or not increasing the width
> by @24% and the length by @52% will net a proportionate increase in
> the capacity of the boat?
>
> The displacement, according to the plans is 600 pounds. Therefore,
> widening the boat by 24% will increase the capacity to 744 pounds and
> lengthening the boat by 52% will increase the capacity to 1131 pounds?
>
> Right?????????
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
>
Mr Bolger's designs are very well thought out as boats and also as to
usage of wood ( Little waste) perhapse if you were to study some
other designs of Mr Bolger another design might be closer to your
needs I built a surf and she is still the prettyest small boat to my
eye
Jeffery
usage of wood ( Little waste) perhapse if you were to study some
other designs of Mr Bolger another design might be closer to your
needs I built a surf and she is still the prettyest small boat to my
eye
Jeffery
--- Inbolger@egroups.com, pnwtexan@h... wrote:
>
> I am new to the group and I have never built a boat. I am finding
the
> emails interesting to say the least. I have owned several
> "Tupperware" and metal boats, but I want to build one of my own. I
> want a Punt because of the flat bottom and the squared off ends. I
> like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt, but I need a larger boat.
> Therefore, I am considering the bastardization of a proven design.
I
> bought the plans from "Dynamite" Payson for the Elegant Punt and I
am
> playing with the idea of widening the beam from 37" to 46" across
the
> bottom of the boat and lengthening the overall boat by 48".
> Additionally, I will probably leave the line of the shear, straight,
> instead of putting in the curve from the plans. I am in no way a
> physics or geometry major and it seems like some of you are (or
should
> be). However, when I have made these changes to the plans and built
> them into models, the outcome looks like a boat I would like to fish
> out of on the local lakes, here, in Washington state.
>
> My concern, and or questions are whether or not increasing the width
> by @24% and the length by @52% will net a proportionate increase in
> the capacity of the boat?
>
> The displacement, according to the plans is 600 pounds. Therefore,
> widening the boat by 24% will increase the capacity to 744 pounds
and
> lengthening the boat by 52% will increase the capacity to 1131
pounds?
>
> Rig
I'm not sure of your total needs in your boat. B&B
yachts has a nice design of 9 ft that will hold 4
adults and some gear. Check it out.
B&Byat@...
Roger
--- Chuck Leinweber <chuck@...>
wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer.
http://experts.yahoo.com/
yachts has a nice design of 9 ft that will hold 4
adults and some gear. Check it out.
B&Byat@...
Roger
--- Chuck Leinweber <chuck@...>
wrote:
> Modifying plans is tricky. It is more prudent tohttp://homepages.apci.net/~michalak/15jun00.htm#JONSBOAT
> find an existing design
> that suits your needs. I once built a boat that I
> had designed myself. It
> was a total disaster - a big waste of time and
> materials. I am not saying
> that that will be your fate, but you might take a
> look at Jim Michalak's
> Jonsboat:
>
>__________________________________________________
> Chuck
>
>
> >
> > I am new to the group and I have never built a
> boat. I am finding the
> > emails interesting to say the least. I have owned
> several
> > "Tupperware" and metal boats, but I want to build
> one of my own. I
> > want a Punt because of the flat bottom and the
> squared off ends. I
> > like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt, but I
> need a larger boat.
> > Therefore, I am considering the bastardization of
> a proven design. I
> > bought the plans from "Dynamite" Payson for the
> Elegant Punt and I am
> > playing with the idea of widening the beam from
> 37" to 46" across the
> > bottom of the boat and lengthening the overall
> boat by 48".
> > Additionally, I will probably leave the line of
> the shear, straight,
> > instead of putting in the curve from the plans. I
> am in no way a
> > physics or geometry major and it seems like some
> of you are (or should
> > be). However, when I have made these changes to
> the plans and built
> > them into models, the outcome looks like a boat I
> would like to fish
> > out of on the local lakes, here, in Washington
> state.
> >
> > My concern, and or questions are whether or not
> increasing the width
> > by @24% and the length by @52% will net a
> proportionate increase in
> > the capacity of the boat?
> >
> > The displacement, according to the plans is 600
> pounds. Therefore,
> > widening the boat by 24% will increase the
> capacity to 744 pounds and
> > lengthening the boat by 52% will increase the
> capacity to 1131 pounds?
> >
> > Right?????????
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Bolger rules!!!
> > - no cursing
> > - stay on topic
> > - use punctuation
> > - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> > - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!"
> posts off-list.
> >
> >
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer.
http://experts.yahoo.com/
Put the lines of EP into Carlson's hulls program
(http://www.carlsondesign.com), stretch it, and check the displacement.
Richard Spelling, http://www.spellingbusiness.com/boats
From the muddy waters of Oklahoma
(http://www.carlsondesign.com), stretch it, and check the displacement.
Richard Spelling, http://www.spellingbusiness.com/boats
From the muddy waters of Oklahoma
----- Original Message -----
From: <pnwtexan@...>
To: <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 11:02 PM
Subject: [bolger] Computing Displacement
>
> I am new to the group and I have never built a boat. I am finding the
> emails interesting to say the least. I have owned several
> "Tupperware" and metal boats, but I want to build one of my own. I
> want a Punt because of the flat bottom and the squared off ends. I
> like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt, but I need a larger boat.
> Therefore, I am considering the bastardization of a proven design. I
> bought the plans from "Dynamite" Payson for the Elegant Punt and I am
> playing with the idea of widening the beam from 37" to 46" across the
> bottom of the boat and lengthening the overall boat by 48".
> Additionally, I will probably leave the line of the shear, straight,
> instead of putting in the curve from the plans. I am in no way a
> physics or geometry major and it seems like some of you are (or should
> be). However, when I have made these changes to the plans and built
> them into models, the outcome looks like a boat I would like to fish
> out of on the local lakes, here, in Washington state.
>
> My concern, and or questions are whether or not increasing the width
> by @24% and the length by @52% will net a proportionate increase in
> the capacity of the boat?
>
> The displacement, according to the plans is 600 pounds. Therefore,
> widening the boat by 24% will increase the capacity to 744 pounds and
> lengthening the boat by 52% will increase the capacity to 1131 pounds?
>
> Right?????????
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bolger rules!!!
> - no cursing
> - stay on topic
> - use punctuation
> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>
I spent nigh 20 yr in Washington State. Wish I were
still there.
Which part do you hail from?
Roger
---pnwtexan@...wrote:
Do You Yahoo!?
From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer.
http://experts.yahoo.com/
still there.
Which part do you hail from?
Roger
---pnwtexan@...wrote:
>__________________________________________________
> I am new to the group and I have never built a boat.
> I am finding the
> emails interesting to say the least. I have owned
> several
> "Tupperware" and metal boats, but I want to build
> one of my own. I
> want a Punt because of the flat bottom and the
> squared off ends. I
> like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt, but I need
> a larger boat.
> Therefore, I am considering the bastardization of a
> proven design. I
> bought the plans from "Dynamite" Payson for the
> Elegant Punt and I am
> playing with the idea of widening the beam from 37"
> to 46" across the
> bottom of the boat and lengthening the overall boat
> by 48".
> Additionally, I will probably leave the line of the
> shear, straight,
> instead of putting in the curve from the plans. I
> am in no way a
> physics or geometry major and it seems like some of
> you are (or should
> be). However, when I have made these changes to the
> plans and built
> them into models, the outcome looks like a boat I
> would like to fish
> out of on the local lakes, here, in Washington
> state.
>
> My concern, and or questions are whether or not
> increasing the width
> by @24% and the length by @52% will net a
> proportionate increase in
> the capacity of the boat?
>
> The displacement, according to the plans is 600
> pounds. Therefore,
> widening the boat by 24% will increase the capacity
> to 744 pounds and
> lengthening the boat by 52% will increase the
> capacity to 1131 pounds?
>
> Right?????????
>
>
>
>
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
From homework help to love advice, Yahoo! Experts has your answer.
http://experts.yahoo.com/
> I like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt, but I need a largerboat.
Given the very large number of designs out there for punts of
different descriptions, why not keep looking. I built an Elegant
Punt, and I was not especially pleased with it. It is very narrow and
high-sided, compared with what I was used to in a yacht tender.
If you need more capacity, have a look at the Brick.
Peter
Chuck --
Did you learn anything from your misadventure?
I hold what I do for a living in pretty high regard, and am not
inclined towards underestimating just what it takes to do anything
professionally. Still, whether it's "written, produced, and directed
by" or "I designed it and build it myself" the lure of authorship is
nearly irresistible.
I've set the Chesapeake sharpie restoration up as an obstacle to any
new, larger projects. The deal I've made with myself is I can't start
anything bigger than the Chesapeake until she's on a float, ready to
hoist sail.
The idea of the LS2(3) is pretty compelling. A year or so of boat
building, a few weeks of idyllic family camping; all for only
$5000-$10000. Stacks up pretty nicely to a Carnival Cruise or all the
fun the auto makers' adds promise me if I give them the money instead.
Still, for all my enthusiasm, I am cautious. The BIG BACKYARD BOAT is
the classic folly, and I am not so over-endowed with either leisure
or money as to engage in such folly without at least a little
self-searching and reflection.
In the meantime, drawing and fantasizing is delicious, far more fun
than watching TV
YIBB,
David
134 W.26th St. 12th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(212) 243-1636
Did you learn anything from your misadventure?
I hold what I do for a living in pretty high regard, and am not
inclined towards underestimating just what it takes to do anything
professionally. Still, whether it's "written, produced, and directed
by" or "I designed it and build it myself" the lure of authorship is
nearly irresistible.
I've set the Chesapeake sharpie restoration up as an obstacle to any
new, larger projects. The deal I've made with myself is I can't start
anything bigger than the Chesapeake until she's on a float, ready to
hoist sail.
The idea of the LS2(3) is pretty compelling. A year or so of boat
building, a few weeks of idyllic family camping; all for only
$5000-$10000. Stacks up pretty nicely to a Carnival Cruise or all the
fun the auto makers' adds promise me if I give them the money instead.
Still, for all my enthusiasm, I am cautious. The BIG BACKYARD BOAT is
the classic folly, and I am not so over-endowed with either leisure
or money as to engage in such folly without at least a little
self-searching and reflection.
In the meantime, drawing and fantasizing is delicious, far more fun
than watching TV
YIBB,
David
>Modifying plans is tricky. It is more prudent to find an existing designCRUMBLING EMPIRE PRODUCTIONS
>that suits your needs. I once built a boat that I had designed myself. It
>was a total disaster - a big waste of time and materials. I am not saying
>that that will be your fate, but you might take a look at Jim Michalak's
>Jonsboat:
>http://homepages.apci.net/~michalak/15jun00.htm#JONSBOAT
>
>Chuck
>
>
>>
>> I am new to the group and I have never built a boat. I am finding the
>> emails interesting to say the least. I have owned several
>> "Tupperware" and metal boats, but I want to build one of my own. I
>> want a Punt because of the flat bottom and the squared off ends. I
>> like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt, but I need a larger boat.
>> Therefore, I am considering the bastardization of a proven design. I
>> bought the plans from "Dynamite" Payson for the Elegant Punt and I am
>> playing with the idea of widening the beam from 37" to 46" across the
>> bottom of the boat and lengthening the overall boat by 48".
>> Additionally, I will probably leave the line of the shear, straight,
>> instead of putting in the curve from the plans. I am in no way a
>> physics or geometry major and it seems like some of you are (or should
>> be). However, when I have made these changes to the plans and built
>> them into models, the outcome looks like a boat I would like to fish
>> out of on the local lakes, here, in Washington state.
>>
>> My concern, and or questions are whether or not increasing the width
>> by @24% and the length by @52% will net a proportionate increase in
>> the capacity of the boat?
>>
>> The displacement, according to the plans is 600 pounds. Therefore,
>> widening the boat by 24% will increase the capacity to 744 pounds and
>> lengthening the boat by 52% will increase the capacity to 1131 pounds?
>>
>> Right?????????
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Bolger rules!!!
>> - no cursing
>> - stay on topic
>> - use punctuation
>> - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
>> - add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>Bolger rules!!!
>- no cursing
>- stay on topic
>- use punctuation
>- add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
>- add some content: send "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
134 W.26th St. 12th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(212) 243-1636
No math god either, I'm finding hull design increasingly fascinating -
definitely one of those situations where the more you learn , the more there
is to learn :) There are some great freeware/shareware software packages out
there for doing the 'grunt work' calculation in basic hull design. My
current favourite is Gregg Carlson's Chine Hull Designer (available in the
Vault). Ten minutes typing the values from your re-design into the program
and you can see visually the results of the changes.
At the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs; a couple of words of
caution - when you modify a hull design by differing proportions (as opposed
to simply scaling all the dimensions up or down by a uniform percentage) the
resultant hull will not behave in the same way as the original. The 600lb
quoted is of course a maximum load, and not the displacement at the
waterline shown on the plans.
Seehttp://www.ace.net.au/schooner/redesign.htm#start:)
Cheers
Derek
definitely one of those situations where the more you learn , the more there
is to learn :) There are some great freeware/shareware software packages out
there for doing the 'grunt work' calculation in basic hull design. My
current favourite is Gregg Carlson's Chine Hull Designer (available in the
Vault). Ten minutes typing the values from your re-design into the program
and you can see visually the results of the changes.
At the risk of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs; a couple of words of
caution - when you modify a hull design by differing proportions (as opposed
to simply scaling all the dimensions up or down by a uniform percentage) the
resultant hull will not behave in the same way as the original. The 600lb
quoted is of course a maximum load, and not the displacement at the
waterline shown on the plans.
Seehttp://www.ace.net.au/schooner/redesign.htm#start:)
Cheers
Derek
I am new to the group and I have never built a boat. I am finding the
emails interesting to say the least. I have owned several
"Tupperware" and metal boats, but I want to build one of my own. I
want a Punt because of the flat bottom and the squared off ends. I
like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt, but I need a larger boat.
Therefore, I am considering the bastardization of a proven design. I
bought the plans from "Dynamite" Payson for the Elegant Punt and I am
playing with the idea of widening the beam from 37" to 46" across the
bottom of the boat and lengthening the overall boat by 48".
Additionally, I will probably leave the line of the shear, straight,
instead of putting in the curve from the plans. I am in no way a
physics or geometry major and it seems like some of you are (or should
be). However, when I have made these changes to the plans and built
them into models, the outcome looks like a boat I would like to fish
out of on the local lakes, here, in Washington state.
My concern, and or questions are whether or not increasing the width
by @24% and the length by @52% will net a proportionate increase in
the capacity of the boat?
The displacement, according to the plans is 600 pounds. Therefore,
widening the boat by 24% will increase the capacity to 744 pounds and
lengthening the boat by 52% will increase the capacity to 1131 pounds?
Right?????????
emails interesting to say the least. I have owned several
"Tupperware" and metal boats, but I want to build one of my own. I
want a Punt because of the flat bottom and the squared off ends. I
like the simplicity of the Elegant Punt, but I need a larger boat.
Therefore, I am considering the bastardization of a proven design. I
bought the plans from "Dynamite" Payson for the Elegant Punt and I am
playing with the idea of widening the beam from 37" to 46" across the
bottom of the boat and lengthening the overall boat by 48".
Additionally, I will probably leave the line of the shear, straight,
instead of putting in the curve from the plans. I am in no way a
physics or geometry major and it seems like some of you are (or should
be). However, when I have made these changes to the plans and built
them into models, the outcome looks like a boat I would like to fish
out of on the local lakes, here, in Washington state.
My concern, and or questions are whether or not increasing the width
by @24% and the length by @52% will net a proportionate increase in
the capacity of the boat?
The displacement, according to the plans is 600 pounds. Therefore,
widening the boat by 24% will increase the capacity to 744 pounds and
lengthening the boat by 52% will increase the capacity to 1131 pounds?
Right?????????