Re: The Original Otter
The prototype Otter II was found to be too tender, and some ballast
was required for general use. In the note that PCB wrote about this
(in Small Boat Journal?), he said he had decided that 20' was too
small for a cabin sharpie. He did try again with Wish II (see 30 Odd
Boats) which certainly has some nice features along with some
questionable ones (such as no footwell for the cockpit). However, PCB
did not like Wish II very much, and I have never heard of one being
built.
Otter seems to be about 2' deep (i.e. 2' of "headroom" in the cabin),
which doesn't make it a cabin boat, IMHO
Peter
was required for general use. In the note that PCB wrote about this
(in Small Boat Journal?), he said he had decided that 20' was too
small for a cabin sharpie. He did try again with Wish II (see 30 Odd
Boats) which certainly has some nice features along with some
questionable ones (such as no footwell for the cockpit). However, PCB
did not like Wish II very much, and I have never heard of one being
built.
Otter seems to be about 2' deep (i.e. 2' of "headroom" in the cabin),
which doesn't make it a cabin boat, IMHO
Peter
I'm looking at Chap 13 of Bink's copy (Thank you Bink!) of Different
Boats, Otter II. Right off the bat PCB states that Otter is a
design "that I wish I could get back." But then he states "It's a
good basic shape; in fact the boats built from it go pretty well, but
it's not well laid out for efficient assembly."
And that seems to be his basic gripe with Otter. That it was an
early 'instant boat' and "The presentation is not elegant."
He says he gave Otter II the best method of hanging leeboards of all
the different ways he'd tried (Otter II is #375), and he says
he "cleaned up the rig, with the main object of not giving as much
offense as some earlier efforts had done." Whatever that means.
He says Otter depends on high and flaring sides to prevent swamping,
and that Otter II has the same, but with more "breadth to stand up to
her higher rig." He seems proud of his compartmentation on II. He
says he made one stupid mistake on II, he forgot to divide the mizzen
area computation by 2 "with cascading errors resulting all through
the sail and spar plan"! A guy going over his plans 6 months later
had to find the error. "I'd swear a 4th grader couldn't do such a
thing--or should be spanked if he did." (Bolger cracks me up
sometimes!) He redrew the plans. Then he says "I tell this tale
bacause there are people here and there who take me too seriously by
half..."
Would that be us!?
I was taken with Otter II, and studied it closely, but decided the
cabin is too small, and the cockpit too. I hadn't heard that he'd
had second thoughts on it. do you know what he objected to? I
wonder if the added breadth had something to do with it, or maybe
just over compartmemtation...
John
Boats, Otter II. Right off the bat PCB states that Otter is a
design "that I wish I could get back." But then he states "It's a
good basic shape; in fact the boats built from it go pretty well, but
it's not well laid out for efficient assembly."
And that seems to be his basic gripe with Otter. That it was an
early 'instant boat' and "The presentation is not elegant."
He says he gave Otter II the best method of hanging leeboards of all
the different ways he'd tried (Otter II is #375), and he says
he "cleaned up the rig, with the main object of not giving as much
offense as some earlier efforts had done." Whatever that means.
He says Otter depends on high and flaring sides to prevent swamping,
and that Otter II has the same, but with more "breadth to stand up to
her higher rig." He seems proud of his compartmentation on II. He
says he made one stupid mistake on II, he forgot to divide the mizzen
area computation by 2 "with cascading errors resulting all through
the sail and spar plan"! A guy going over his plans 6 months later
had to find the error. "I'd swear a 4th grader couldn't do such a
thing--or should be spanked if he did." (Bolger cracks me up
sometimes!) He redrew the plans. Then he says "I tell this tale
bacause there are people here and there who take me too seriously by
half..."
Would that be us!?
I was taken with Otter II, and studied it closely, but decided the
cabin is too small, and the cockpit too. I hadn't heard that he'd
had second thoughts on it. do you know what he objected to? I
wonder if the added breadth had something to do with it, or maybe
just over compartmemtation...
John
--- Inbolger@egroups.com, "Roger Vail" <rogerva@h...> wrote:
> While looking up the recommended-for-my-requirements Featherwind
> in "Small Boats," I was surprised to find the relatively attractive
> Otter. I say relatively attractive because I found Otter II to be
not
> very appealing, but the original Otter quite the opposite.
>
> My question is this: I know that PCB has spoken poorly of Otter II,
> but what of the original Otter? Was Otter II created to rectify
> problems realized in Otter I, and if so, what were those problems?
In
> other words, is Otter I regarded as poorly as Otter II is?
>
> Just Curious,
> Roger
While looking up the recommended-for-my-requirements Featherwind
in "Small Boats," I was surprised to find the relatively attractive
Otter. I say relatively attractive because I found Otter II to be not
very appealing, but the original Otter quite the opposite.
My question is this: I know that PCB has spoken poorly of Otter II,
but what of the original Otter? Was Otter II created to rectify
problems realized in Otter I, and if so, what were those problems? In
other words, is Otter I regarded as poorly as Otter II is?
Just Curious,
Roger
in "Small Boats," I was surprised to find the relatively attractive
Otter. I say relatively attractive because I found Otter II to be not
very appealing, but the original Otter quite the opposite.
My question is this: I know that PCB has spoken poorly of Otter II,
but what of the original Otter? Was Otter II created to rectify
problems realized in Otter I, and if so, what were those problems? In
other words, is Otter I regarded as poorly as Otter II is?
Just Curious,
Roger