Re: Tennessee vs. Idaho
Hi
I built and own a Sneakeasy. The Idaho is a stretched version of
Sneakeasy. She has a flat bottom all the way to the stern and a
slight rise in the bow. Idaho is 5 feet wide by 31 feet I believe.
Tennessee is 29 feet by 6 feet and is a semidisplacement hull in that
there is a rise in the stern. My Sneakeasy is 4 feet wide, 26 feet
long and is very stable because of the flat bottom and no stern
rise. You may want to contact Chuck Leinweber at Duckworks magazine
whose has built a Tennessee. She looks very stable and roomy. The
Wyoming is a larger version of Sneakeasy by two times. Jeff Blunck
is building one, only the second one in the world I think. There is
an article and link inhttp://www.duckworksmagazine.comto see it.
Hope this helps.
P.S. I love my Sneakeasy
Steve Bosquette
I built and own a Sneakeasy. The Idaho is a stretched version of
Sneakeasy. She has a flat bottom all the way to the stern and a
slight rise in the bow. Idaho is 5 feet wide by 31 feet I believe.
Tennessee is 29 feet by 6 feet and is a semidisplacement hull in that
there is a rise in the stern. My Sneakeasy is 4 feet wide, 26 feet
long and is very stable because of the flat bottom and no stern
rise. You may want to contact Chuck Leinweber at Duckworks magazine
whose has built a Tennessee. She looks very stable and roomy. The
Wyoming is a larger version of Sneakeasy by two times. Jeff Blunck
is building one, only the second one in the world I think. There is
an article and link inhttp://www.duckworksmagazine.comto see it.
Hope this helps.
P.S. I love my Sneakeasy
Steve Bosquette
What are the major differences between the Tennessee and the Idaho?
They seem to be about the same size. In searching around the web
I've seen various Tennessees and Idahos mentioned to be anywhere from
29 to 31 feet long with 5 to 6 foot beams.
Since their size is so similar, what are the major differences
between the two designs?
If I were to build either one, scaled to be 30 feet long, which one
would have the wider beam and the most capacity? Which of the two
would handle better?
They seem to be about the same size. In searching around the web
I've seen various Tennessees and Idahos mentioned to be anywhere from
29 to 31 feet long with 5 to 6 foot beams.
Since their size is so similar, what are the major differences
between the two designs?
If I were to build either one, scaled to be 30 feet long, which one
would have the wider beam and the most capacity? Which of the two
would handle better?
Going through the same evaluations myself for next project. The site
here in Oz with several versions of Tennessee is www.duckflat-
woodenboats.com.au. They also have a book with many more variations.
Other things to consider is Tennessee is beamier and lends itself to
better accomodation, also motor can be hidden in a well.
Pat Devlin
here in Oz with several versions of Tennessee is www.duckflat-
woodenboats.com.au. They also have a book with many more variations.
Other things to consider is Tennessee is beamier and lends itself to
better accomodation, also motor can be hidden in a well.
Pat Devlin
Stan Muller [mailto:smuller@...] wrote:
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it from Mi Services
Group may contain information which is
privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.
If it is not addressed to you, please immediately contact
nzpostmaster@...and do not use, disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any of it without our authority.
**********************************************************************
> Our friends, "down under" seem to really go for the Tennessee. Ihttp://www.ace.net.au/schooner/tenn.htm
> remember seeing a web site showing quite a number of them, having a
> variety of differing layouts. built to the taste of the owners. Maybe
> someone on the list can fill you in with some URL's
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it from Mi Services
Group may contain information which is
privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.
If it is not addressed to you, please immediately contact
nzpostmaster@...and do not use, disclose,
copy, distribute or retain any of it without our authority.
**********************************************************************
The difference is pretty simple:
TN is a displacement hull, designed for low power and low speeds. 10-15 HP
gives 10-12 mph max, cruise at 8 mph. Putting a bigger engine on TN won't
make it go much faster, it would just make bigger waves.
ID is a planing hull, designed to operate at higher speeds given adequate
horsepower. 25-35 HP gives 20+ mph. ID should cruise at a higher speed than
TN, maybe 12 mph.
Both boats have straight sides.
TN is a displacement hull, designed for low power and low speeds. 10-15 HP
gives 10-12 mph max, cruise at 8 mph. Putting a bigger engine on TN won't
make it go much faster, it would just make bigger waves.
ID is a planing hull, designed to operate at higher speeds given adequate
horsepower. 25-35 HP gives 20+ mph. ID should cruise at a higher speed than
TN, maybe 12 mph.
Both boats have straight sides.
----- Original Message -----
From: "E. W. Williams Jr." <ewwill@...>
To: "Bolger" <bolger@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 11:28 AM
Subject: [bolger] Tennessee vs. Idaho
I don't know enough about boat desigh to evaluate the differences (below
water) of the Tenn and Idaho designs.
For instance
- Is the lack of rocker and straight sides an improvement over the Tennessee
design, or just an adjustment made for greater speed or whatever?
- Chuck says that Tennessee stood up well to even 3-4 foot waves. Will this
general sea-worthyness be lost with the Idaho re-design.
I guess I'm not quite sure whether to regard Idaho as an improvement over
the Tennessee design or simply a redesign for different purposes.
Anybody out there with some ideas on the matter. (I want to build one or
the other for inland-waterway use here on the East coast, but I'm not sure
which way to jump.)
Edgar Williams
Stan,
Yes, I've seen those Aussie pixs (Duckworks is the site, I think.) They've
done some modification that entail a retractable rudder and some other
things. Anyone with some experience of those modifications?
Edgar
Yes, I've seen those Aussie pixs (Duckworks is the site, I think.) They've
done some modification that entail a retractable rudder and some other
things. Anyone with some experience of those modifications?
Edgar
Hi Edgar,
Our friends, "down under" seem to really go for the Tennessee. I
remember seeing a web site showing quite a number of them, having a
variety of differing layouts. built to the taste of the owners. Maybe
someone on the list can fill you in with some URL's
Hope this helps, Stan, S.G.
Our friends, "down under" seem to really go for the Tennessee. I
remember seeing a web site showing quite a number of them, having a
variety of differing layouts. built to the taste of the owners. Maybe
someone on the list can fill you in with some URL's
Hope this helps, Stan, S.G.
I don't know enough about boat desigh to evaluate
the differences (below water) of the Tenn and Idaho designs.
For instance
- Is the lack of rocker and straight sides an
improvement over the Tennessee design, or just an adjustment made for greater
speed or whatever?
- Chuck says that Tennessee stood up well to even
3-4 foot waves. Will this general sea-worthyness be lost with the Idaho
re-design.
I guess I'm not quite sure whether to regard Idaho
as an improvement over the Tennessee design or simply a redesign for different
purposes.
Anybody out there with some ideas on the
matter. (I want to build one or the other for inland-waterway use here on
the East coast, but I'm not sure which way to jump.)
Edgar Williams