Luna is going up for sale, reluctantly, since we are moving to south america.
Chinese lugsail rigged, wind gen, lots of stuff, with a truck even for 10K.  
Details at http://sharpieluna.tripod.com   Best wishes from Sitka, lovely little
sea island burg with 9000 folks.

I'm eventually going to build an inboard with the motor up near the front.
Haven't settled on a hull yet, but have been thinking on the motor. It will be
an automotive conversion. I've seen a couple with Honda car engines, and want
something small similar to that, but I may have access to a 120 hp Mercruiser
(Cold Chevy 140 cubic inch four). Don't want the in/out arrangement, straight
shaft inboard.

I've seen two older conversions that used an automotive transmission. One used
twin sixes with automatic transmissions. In that one one trans was run in
reverse all the time, the other always in first, so props were turned opposite
each other. Gear reductions were close in those gears -- the props were custom
made to make up the difference. Owner said that cruising at about 25 knots the
throttles were perfectly aligned, slightly out at lower speeds to balance. The
other used a manual three speed trans with a single engine. The engine was just
behind the driver's seat and had a hand clutch arrangement with two cables. The
cable were connected one to the first/reverse and one to the 2nd/3rd shift
levers. They were adjusted so that they would only shift neutral/revers and
neutral/3rd (a manual stop to prevent 1st and 2nd operation might have been in
place... he may have used 2nd instead of 3rd, as 3rd is 1:1).

What I don't know is how the thrust arrangement was made. I believe the manual
trans used a single universal joint at the trans, not sure about the autos,
though they had to have some type of slip coupling. Shouldn't there be something
on the shaft itself to handle thrust of the prop, or is it just right up the
shaft into the transmission? Cars don't have anything, but the thrust is taken
through the suspension, not the drive shaft/transmission/engine. I suppose I
could use a pillow block bearing near the trans that has a thrust bearing in
it...

----- Original Message -----

From: farna@...

To: bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:49 AM

Subject: [bolger] Inboard idea...

 

I'm eventually going to build an inboard with the motor up near the front. Haven't settled on a hull yet, but have been thinking on the motor. It will be an automotive conversion. I've seen a couple with Honda car engines, and want something small similar to that, but I may have access to a 120 hp Mercruiser (Cold Chevy 140 cubic inch four). Don't want the in/out arrangement, straight shaft inboard.

I've seen two older conversions that used an automotive transmission. One used twin sixes with automatic transmissions. In that one one trans was run in reverse all the time, the other always in first, so props were turned opposite each other. Gear reductions were close in those gears -- the props were custom made to make up the difference. Owner said that cruising at about 25 knots the throttles were perfectly aligned, slightly out at lower speeds to balance. The other used a manual three speed trans with a single engine. The engine was just behind the driver's seat and had a hand clutch arrangement with two cables. The cable were connected one to the first/reverse and one to the 2nd/3rd shift levers. They were adjusted so that they would only shift neutral/revers and neutral/3rd (a manual stop to prevent 1st and 2nd operation might have been in place... he may have used 2nd instead of 3rd, as 3rd is 1:1).

What I don't know is how the thrust arrangement was made. I believe the manual trans used a single universal joint at the trans, not sure about the autos, though they had to have some type of slip coupling. Shouldn't there be something on the shaft itself to handle thrust of the prop, or is it just right up the shaft into the transmission? Cars don't have anything, but the thrust is taken through the suspension, not the drive shaft/transmission/engine. I suppose I could use a pillow block bearing near the trans that has a thrust bearing in it...

Thanks Mason,

does the deks olje ever rub off or stain the sails, or does it dry to a point
where it's inert? I've begun to paint and finish my long-awaited Micro before my
temporary boatshed's tarp finally photodegrades to nothing, and have been
pondering options for finishing the spars. The thought of maintaining varnish on
an unwieldy mast that's bound to get dinged up a lot (but also be very a visible
part of the boat) has given me pause; this might be the solution I've been
waiting for!

Paul Lefebvre, world's slowest micro builder


--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Mason Smith" <masonsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> I'd say the answer is yes, you can oil
> your spars this year and varnish them
> later or keep oiling them. What oil?
> That might be the real question. I have
> long used Deks Olje and in fact am
> putting it on my Micro spars, first
> several soaking coats of Deks Olje # 1
> and then several of Deks Olje #2, which
> looks a lot like varnish and makes a
> surface finish of pretty good gloss but
> is more flexible, less likely to
> separate from the wood, and easier to
> maintain.
>
>
>
> My varnished spruce sprit-booms both got
> black spots wherever the varnish was
> dinged, and looked pretty sorry. I
> rounded-over the corners more, exposing
> bare wood of course, and treated this
> exposed wood with Deks Olje 1 and 2,
> going right over the varnish on the flat
> sides with both. So I am running an
> experiment, you might say, in mixing the
> two kinds of finish: how do these oils
> work on top of varnish? (I didn't want
> to strip, you see!)
>
>
>
> Incidentally, Deks 1 is a very good
> primer for varnish, and you can do the
> whole Deks Olje system, 1 and 2, as I
> have done on a 100 year old Rushton
> lapstrake rowboat, and then varnish. I'd
> venture to say that is a very good way
> to go, the varnish then much less likely
> to get broken through to the wood and
> undermined by water penetration.
>
>
>
> What is Deks Olje? Good question. But
> whatever it is, it is a good
> wood-bulking agent and not mostly
> solvents. It goes into wood pores and
> gels and stays there, pretty much.
>

 

What was the point again ?

----- Original Message -----

From: farna@...

To: bolger@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:49 AM

Subject: [bolger] Inboard idea...

 

I'm eventually going to build an inboard with the motor up near the front. Haven't settled on a hull yet, but have been thinking on the motor. It will be an automotive conversion. I've seen a couple with Honda car engines, and want something small similar to that, but I may have access to a 120 hp Mercruiser (Cold Chevy 140 cubic inch four). Don't want the in/out arrangement, straight shaft inboard.

I've seen two older conversions that used an automotive transmission. One used twin sixes with automatic transmissions. In that one one trans was run in reverse all the time, the other always in first, so props were turned opposite each other. Gear reductions were close in those gears -- the props were custom made to make up the difference. Owner said that cruising at about 25 knots the throttles were perfectly aligned, slightly out at lower speeds to balance. The other used a manual three speed trans with a single engine. The engine was just behind the driver's seat and had a hand clutch arrangement with two cables. The cable were connected one to the first/reverse and one to the 2nd/3rd shift levers. They were adjusted so that they would only shift neutral/revers and neutral/3rd (a manual stop to prevent 1st and 2nd operation might have been in place... he may have used 2nd instead of 3rd, as 3rd is 1:1).

What I don't know is how the thrust arrangement was made. I believe the manual trans used a single universal joint at the trans, not sure about the autos, though they had to have some type of slip coupling. Shouldn't there be something on the shaft itself to handle thrust of the prop, or is it just right up the shaft into the transmission? Cars don't have anything, but the thrust is taken through the suspension, not the drive shaft/transmission/engine. I suppose I could use a pillow block bearing near the trans that has a thrust bearing in it...

What I don't know is how the thrust arrangement was made.

There already exists a well-engineered system (installed in some manufactured
boats - a 1995 Morgan
45 sailboat we have listed includes this) that uses a typical "self-aligning"
pillow-block
thrust-bearing firmly attached to the hull at forward end of prop-shaft,
followed by a
constant-velocity "cardan-shaft" to allow the engine to be mounted very softly
(extremely "loose"
rubber mounts") specifically to avoid transfer of engine-vibrations into the
hull -- DOES reduce
noise significantly.



But if you thought marine transmissions were expensive.....



see:  http://www.aquadrive.com/system.html



These are usually installed to a marine engine with marine transmission (of
course then the marine
transmission's thrust bearing is redundant) -- but note that thereby, there IS
still in the
driveline, the typical "drive-plate" (with springs) between engine and marine
transmission, which is
there to absorb the high-speed torque-vibration of each cylinder's firing, to
protect (yes) the
transmission (but also) the shafting and prop -- rumor has it that without such
torsion flexibility,
the mechanicals beyond the engine can self-destruct.



I challenge you to reverse-engineer the concept using industrial-supplyhouse
pillow-block thrust
bearing, and perhaps junkyard constant-velocity shafting from a
front-wheel-drive car...  as far as
THAT goes, I wonder if the wheel's bearing that such front-wheel drive shafting
"ends" at, would be
sufficient as the thrust-bearing? just mount the entire brake-carrier casting
right to a bulkhead
firmly installed where the shaft comes thru the bottom of the boat.....  oops,
THAT car-system is
operating at considerably lower rpm, I suspect...



BUT if your  initial reverse-engineered design has "teething problems" like any
invention...  it
becomes a question of "what's your time worth"?   it's worth noting that Sir
James Dyson built 5,127
fully functioning prototypes of his bagless vacuum-cleaner, before he finally
came up with the first
model suitable for marketing to the masses.



Might be far more re-assuring to just bite the financial bullet and find a
proven marine
transmission with integral thrust bearing, used and/or rebuilt.  There has been
nearly a hundred
years by now of expensive engineering and manufacturing experience....  Out here
on the Salish-Sea
end of Left Coast (Pacific NW) the true expert in marine transmissions is Mike
Vogt of Harbor Marine
in Everett, WA.... no I don't think he would take kindly to long discussions on
"re-inventing" the
marine transmission, but he's the go-to guy for supply of new/"take-out"/used
marine transmissions,
as well as parts for every known type -- and, of course, in-house repair.



Regards,

Wayne Gilham



From: bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
farna@...
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:50 AM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Inboard idea...





I'm eventually going to build an inboard with the motor up near the front.
Haven't settled on a hull
yet, but have been thinking on the motor. It will be an automotive conversion.
I've seen a couple
with Honda car engines, and want something small similar to that, but I may have
access to a 120 hp
Mercruiser (Cold Chevy 140 cubic inch four). Don't want the in/out arrangement,
straight shaft
inboard.

I've seen two older conversions that used an automotive transmission. One used
twin sixes with
automatic transmissions. In that one one trans was run in reverse all the time,
the other always in
first, so props were turned opposite each other. Gear reductions were close in
those gears -- the
props were custom made to make up the difference. Owner said that cruising at
about 25 knots the
throttles were perfectly aligned, slightly out at lower speeds to balance. The
other used a manual
three speed trans with a single engine. The engine was just behind the driver's
seat and had a hand
clutch arrangement with two cables. The cable were connected one to the
first/reverse and one to the
2nd/3rd shift levers. They were adjusted so that they would only shift
neutral/revers and
neutral/3rd (a manual stop to prevent 1st and 2nd operation might have been in
place... he may have
used 2nd instead of 3rd, as 3rd is 1:1).

What I don't know is how the thrust arrangement was made. I believe the manual
trans used a single
universal joint at the trans, not sure about the autos, though they had to have
some type of slip
coupling. Shouldn't there be something on the shaft itself to handle thrust of
the prop, or is it
just right up the shaft into the transmission? Cars don't have anything, but the
thrust is taken
through the suspension, not the drive shaft/transmission/engine. I suppose I
could use a pillow
block bearing near the trans that has a thrust bearing in it...

AHA!  yep, the AquaDrive system has its own design of torsional-vibration
dampener (a.k.a.
"driveplate") -- so even in this system, they have found it necessary to isolate
down-stream
components from the engine's firing impulses....



see bottom component on this sheet: http://www.aquadrive.com/models.html



Wayne Gilham

(please ignore the attachment - there's nothing in it -- can't figure out how to
stop my Outlook
from attaching that null-file)



From: bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Gilham
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 9:09 AM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [bolger] Inboard idea... (thrust bearing?) [1 Attachment]





[Attachment(s) from Wayne Gilham included below]

There already exists a well-engineered system (installed in some manufactured
boats - a 1995 Morgan
45 sailboat we have listed includes this) that uses a typical "self-aligning"
pillow-block
thrust-bearing firmly attached to the hull at forward end of prop-shaft,
followed by a
constant-velocity "cardan-shaft" to allow the engine to be mounted very softly
(extremely "loose"
rubber mounts") specifically to avoid transfer of engine-vibrations into the
hull -- DOES reduce
noise significantly.

But if you thought marine transmissions were expensive.....

see: http://www.aquadrive.com/system.html

These are usually installed to a marine engine with marine transmission (of
course then the marine
transmission's thrust bearing is redundant) -- but note that thereby, there IS
still in the
driveline, the typical "drive-plate" (with springs) between engine and marine
transmission, which is
there to absorb the high-speed torque-vibration of each cylinder's firing, to
protect (yes) the
transmission (but also) the shafting and prop -- rumor has it that without such
torsion flexibility,
the mechanicals beyond the engine can self-destruct.

I challenge you to reverse-engineer the concept using industrial-supplyhouse
pillow-block thrust
bearing, and perhaps junkyard constant-velocity shafting from a
front-wheel-drive car... as far as
THAT goes, I wonder if the wheel's bearing that such front-wheel drive shafting
"ends" at, would be
sufficient as the thrust-bearing? just mount the entire brake-carrier casting
right to a bulkhead
firmly installed where the shaft comes thru the bottom of the boat..... oops,
THAT car-system is
operating at considerably lower rpm, I suspect...

BUT if your initial reverse-engineered design has "teething problems" like any
invention... it
becomes a question of "what's your time worth"? it's worth noting that Sir James
Dyson built 5,127
fully functioning prototypes of his bagless vacuum-cleaner, before he finally
came up with the first
model suitable for marketing to the masses.

Might be far more re-assuring to just bite the financial bullet and find a
proven marine
transmission with integral thrust bearing, used and/or rebuilt. There has been
nearly a hundred
years by now of expensive engineering and manufacturing experience.... Out here
on the Salish-Sea
end of Left Coast (Pacific NW) the true expert in marine transmissions is Mike
Vogt of Harbor Marine
in Everett, WA.... no I don't think he would take kindly to long discussions on
"re-inventing" the
marine transmission, but he's the go-to guy for supply of new/"take-out"/used
marine transmissions,
as well as parts for every known type -- and, of course, in-house repair.

Regards,

Wayne Gilham

From: bolger@yahoogroups.com <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com> 
[mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of farna@...
<mailto:farna%40att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:50 AM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [bolger] Inboard idea...

I'm eventually going to build an inboard with the motor up near the front.
Haven't settled on a hull
yet, but have been thinking on the motor. It will be an automotive conversion.
I've seen a couple
with Honda car engines, and want something small similar to that, but I may have
access to a 120 hp
Mercruiser (Cold Chevy 140 cubic inch four). Don't want the in/out arrangement,
straight shaft
inboard.

I've seen two older conversions that used an automotive transmission. One used
twin sixes with
automatic transmissions. In that one one trans was run in reverse all the time,
the other always in
first, so props were turned opposite each other. Gear reductions were close in
those gears -- the
props were custom made to make up the difference. Owner said that cruising at
about 25 knots the
throttles were perfectly aligned, slightly out at lower speeds to balance. The
other used a manual
three speed trans with a single engine. The engine was just behind the driver's
seat and had a hand
clutch arrangement with two cables. The cable were connected one to the
first/reverse and one to the
2nd/3rd shift levers. They were adjusted so that they would only shift
neutral/revers and
neutral/3rd (a manual stop to prevent 1st and 2nd operation might have been in
place... he may have
used 2nd instead of 3rd, as 3rd is 1:1).

What I don't know is how the thrust arrangement was made. I believe the manual
trans used a single
universal joint at the trans, not sure about the autos, though they had to have
some type of slip
coupling. Shouldn't there be something on the shaft itself to handle thrust of
the prop, or is it
just right up the shaft into the transmission? Cars don't have anything, but the
thrust is taken
through the suspension, not the drive shaft/transmission/engine. I suppose I
could use a pillow
block bearing near the trans that has a thrust bearing in it...

In the very-long-ago days of direct-drive marine engines of pleasureboat size --
like the old
"one-lungers" that typically turned 500 to max 800 rpm -- and were often
"direct-reversing",
especially if a two-stroke -- the engine itself had a thrust bearing on the
forward end of the
crankshaft (transmitting thrust from crankshaft to engine-block) ... I've taken
a few of these old
engines apart, and it's often a roller thrust bearing even way back in the early
1900's -- or at
least some mighty large-diameter thrust-washers.







From: bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
farna@...
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 6:50 AM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bolger] Inboard idea...





I'm eventually going to build an inboard with the motor up near the front.
Haven't settled on a hull
yet, but have been thinking on the motor. It will be an automotive conversion.
I've seen a couple
with Honda car engines, and want something small similar to that, but I may have
access to a 120 hp
Mercruiser (Cold Chevy 140 cubic inch four). Don't want the in/out arrangement,
straight shaft
inboard.

I've seen two older conversions that used an automotive transmission. One used
twin sixes with
automatic transmissions. In that one one trans was run in reverse all the time,
the other always in
first, so props were turned opposite each other. Gear reductions were close in
those gears -- the
props were custom made to make up the difference. Owner said that cruising at
about 25 knots the
throttles were perfectly aligned, slightly out at lower speeds to balance. The
other used a manual
three speed trans with a single engine. The engine was just behind the driver's
seat and had a hand
clutch arrangement with two cables. The cable were connected one to the
first/reverse and one to the
2nd/3rd shift levers. They were adjusted so that they would only shift
neutral/revers and
neutral/3rd (a manual stop to prevent 1st and 2nd operation might have been in
place... he may have
used 2nd instead of 3rd, as 3rd is 1:1).

What I don't know is how the thrust arrangement was made. I believe the manual
trans used a single
universal joint at the trans, not sure about the autos, though they had to have
some type of slip
coupling. Shouldn't there be something on the shaft itself to handle thrust of
the prop, or is it
just right up the shaft into the transmission? Cars don't have anything, but the
thrust is taken
through the suspension, not the drive shaft/transmission/engine. I suppose I
could use a pillow
block bearing near the trans that has a thrust bearing in it...

Glen-L may have resources how to adapt an automobile engine -- seems that
"make-do" approach is
right up their alley. Check their website



Regards,

Wayne Gilham

<*>[Attachment(s) from Wayne Gilham included below]
Glen-L may have resources how to adapt an automobile engine -- seems that "make-do" approach is
right up their alley. Check their website
Regards,
Wayne Gilham
<*>Attachment(s) from Wayne Gilham:
<*> 1 of 1 File(s) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/attachments/folder/283075546/item/list <*> winmail.dat
------------------------------------
Bolger rules!!!
- NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
- no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, 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
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bolger/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
bolger-digest@yahoogroups.com bolger-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

There used to be an old long-skinny round-bilge boat on-the-beach here in
Pacific NW (Longbranch, WA
as I remember) with a heavy old striaght-six waaaaaay forward under the
foredeck, perhaps to get a
shallower shaft-exit angle...  never saw it running, but I bet it really threw
an arc of spray off
that rather immersed bow....







Wayne Gilham



From: bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Gilham
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:27 PM
To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [bolger] Inboard idea... [1 Attachment]





[Attachment(s) from Wayne Gilham included below]

Glen-L may have resources how to adapt an automobile engine -- seems that
"make-do" approach is
right up their alley. Check their website

Regards,

Wayne Gilham

 

Glen-L may have resources how to adapt an automobile engine -- seems that "make-do" approach is
right up their alley. Check their website

Regards,

Wayne Gilham

Thanks,everyone! Still thinking...well, waffling really.

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
>
> A less expensive option suitable for a workboat finish might be a
> 'Boat Soup' made from equal parts linseed oil, pine tar and turps.
> Applied properly it dries well and is easily touched up.
>
>
> On May 9, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Paul wrote:
>
> > Thanks Mason,
> >
> > does the deks olje ever rub off or stain the sails, or does it dry
> > to a point where it's inert? I've begun to paint and finish my long-
> > awaited Micro before my temporary boatshed's tarp finally
> > photodegrades to nothing, and have been pondering options for
> > finishing the spars. The thought of maintaining varnish on an
> > unwieldy mast that's bound to get dinged up a lot (but also be very
> > a visible part of the boat) has given me pause; this might be the
> > solution I've been waiting for!
> >
> > Paul Lefebvre, world's slowest micro builder
> >
> > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Mason Smith" <masonsmith@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'd say the answer is yes, you can oil
> > > your spars this year and varnish them
> > > later or keep oiling them. What oil?
> > > That might be the real question. I have
> > > long used Deks Olje and in fact am
> > > putting it on my Micro spars, first
> > > several soaking coats of Deks Olje # 1
> > > and then several of Deks Olje #2, which
> > > looks a lot like varnish and makes a
> > > surface finish of pretty good gloss but
> > > is more flexible, less likely to
> > > separate from the wood, and easier to
> > > maintain.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My varnished spruce sprit-booms both got
> > > black spots wherever the varnish was
> > > dinged, and looked pretty sorry. I
> > > rounded-over the corners more, exposing
> > > bare wood of course, and treated this
> > > exposed wood with Deks Olje 1 and 2,
> > > going right over the varnish on the flat
> > > sides with both. So I am running an
> > > experiment, you might say, in mixing the
> > > two kinds of finish: how do these oils
> > > work on top of varnish? (I didn't want
> > > to strip, you see!)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Incidentally, Deks 1 is a very good
> > > primer for varnish, and you can do the
> > > whole Deks Olje system, 1 and 2, as I
> > > have done on a 100 year old Rushton
> > > lapstrake rowboat, and then varnish. I'd
> > > venture to say that is a very good way
> > > to go, the varnish then much less likely
> > > to get broken through to the wood and
> > > undermined by water penetration.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What is Deks Olje? Good question. But
> > > whatever it is, it is a good
> > > wood-bulking agent and not mostly
> > > solvents. It goes into wood pores and
> > > gels and stays there, pretty much.
> > >
> >
> >
>

Bolger Birdwatcher 2 For Sale
Solent Lug rig with Jib. Constructed with BS1088 Meranti ply, philippine
mahogany
framing, coke bottle green lexan house, West System epoxy. Sailrite sails in
excellent
condition. Includes 2009 aluminum Road King trailer and 2 hp Honda outboard.
Featured in May/June 2011 issue of Small Craft Advisor. $9500 Located in Spring
HIll, FL.
Contact Rex Payne   rkpayne96 at yahoo dot com

pictures in photo files Birdwatcher 2 Frances E

http://smalltridesign.com/masts/Two-Masts-on-Multihull.html


> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@> wrote:

> > nothin' holdin' me back n0W WHO0 H0O! PPPPrrroouwwwwpphhhtppppblath

> > > Can you build a multihull without staying the rig?

> > Hold on.

Just got a quote from a local shipyard on rolling the 1/2" steel bottom plates
for my AS29.  $1500!  Just for the bending.  Still have to buy the plate, have
it cut to suit, bore and countersink the bolt-holes, and galvanize!

Fortunately, Filipinos are very clever, so we are going to look around for other
low-tech options to make the curve (i.e. pounding it with sledgehammers!).

Neal

 

Just got a quote from a local shipyard on rolling the 1/2" steel bottom plates for my AS29. $1500! Just for the bending. Still have to buy the plate, have it cut to suit, bore and countersink the bolt-holes, and galvanize!

Fortunately, Filipinos are very clever, so we are going to look around for other low-tech options to make the curve (i.e. pounding it with sledgehammers!).

Neal

Sorry, Stefan, still can't buy your `logical leap' to multihulls.

First, maybe it's just me, but I don't see how logic and recreational boating go
together. Not that there's no logic in it. But it's kind of like the logic of
love. At which point I could `logically' rest my case, but...

There's the definition thing. Logic utterly depends on strictly defined
definitions. You placed some emphasis on speed in your posts, so how, for
example, are we to define it? Speed downwind, or upwind? Speed in a chop, or
perhaps upwind in a narrow channel? Speed around the buoys or from point to
point, including shoals and low bridges? Speed from side yard on the trailer to
nosed up on the beach, beer in hand? Speed in relation to LWL? Or to cost? Maybe
speed means fast at impressing girls! My favorite definition of speed for a
sailboat: `faster than she looks.'

Same with `easy.' Same with `safe.' A mother's idea of `safe' is a far cry from
her teenager's idea of the same thing. And my own idea of `easy to sail,' now,
is a far cry from what my idea of `easy to sail' was 30 years ago.

For some, yea, it seems logical to make the leap to multihulls. For me, I've
sailed them. I've enjoyed them. My 'logic' is to leave them for others to love.

Have fun!

John

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.
>
> Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes.  For these flatter and wider
serve well.
>
> However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter,
shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping,
'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.
>
> In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve
all of these in spades.  Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing
out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch
can resemble any of our craft.
>
> Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us
here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind
and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before
sundown.
>
> Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger
boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.
>
> Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,
> Stefan
>
> "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand."    -anonymous
>
>
> http://www.cottagemed.org
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:
>
> Stefan,
>
> I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II
is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail.
It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It
was conceived as an instant boat.
>
> Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three
hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased
building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More
complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more
complexity! More cost! Where does it end!
>
> Keep smiling!
>
> John
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria -
go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat -
trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a
multihull.
> >
> > The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster -
much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and
cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the
logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
> >
> > http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
> >
> > Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each
to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the
poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
> >
> > .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off
both ends ...
> >
> > All the Best,
> > Stefan
> >
> > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
> >
> > Stefan Topolski MD
> > Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
> > Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
> > Founder and Director of
> > Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
> > 1105 Mohawk Trail
> > Shelburne Falls, Ma.
> >
> > http://www.cottagemed.org
> >
> >
> >
>

 

Sorry, Stefan, still can't buy your `logical leap' to multihulls.

First, maybe it's just me, but I don't see how logic and recreational boating go together. Not that there's no logic in it. But it's kind of like the logic of love. At which point I could `logically' rest my case, but...

There's the definition thing. Logic utterly depends on strictly defined definitions. You placed some emphasis on speed in your posts, so how, for example, are we to define it? Speed downwind, or upwind? Speed in a chop, or perhaps upwind in a narrow channel? Speed around the buoys or from point to point, including shoals and low bridges? Speed from side yard on the trailer to nosed up on the beach, beer in hand? Speed in relation to LWL? Or to cost? Maybe speed means fast at impressing girls! My favorite definition of speed for a sailboat: `faster than she looks.'

Same with `easy.' Same with `safe.' A mother's idea of `safe' is a far cry from her teenager's idea of the same thing. And my own idea of `easy to sail,' now, is a far cry from what my idea of `easy to sail' was 30 years ago.

For some, yea, it seems logical to make the leap to multihulls. For me, I've sailed them. I've enjoyed them. My 'logic' is to leave them for others to love.

Have fun!

John

--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for outlining the reasons much more clearly.
>
> Speed, ease, space, cost ... yes, yes, yes, yes. For these flatter and wider serve well.
>
> However, the earlier post and Bolger's logic also emphasized flatter, shallower, wider, higher and chined harder for sailing, seakeeping, 'unsinkablility' and ultimate safety sailing happily.
>
> In these regards multihulls are the logical conclusion because they achieve all of these in spades. Rigs can be tabernacled and unstayed, amas can swing out in minutes, launching can be from a flat bed trailer, and the time-to-launch can resemble any of our craft.
>
> Experienced sailors who can get beyond tradition, and there are many among us here, would love to carry less maybe but go three times faster in the same wind and end up on the same beach campgrounds with extra time for another beer before sundown.
>
> Not that there's any rush when one sets to sea, but dancing around larger boats and outracing storms makes for more fun any day.
>
> Proudly and happily sailing our Chebaco again this year,
> Stefan
>
> "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
>
>
> http://www.cottagemed.org
>
>
>
>
> Il giorno abr 29, 2012, alle ore 2:51 pm, John ha scritto:
>
> Stefan,
>
> I don't know about the 'logical leap.' A huge part of the promise of Wish II is simplicity and ease. Ease of build. Ease of rig. Ease of launch and sail. It's hard to set that stuff aside. And let's not forget ease of pocketbook! It was conceived as an instant boat.
>
> Certainly arcing the bottom complicates the build significantly, but three hulls? Or even two? We're getting into an order of magnitude range of increased building complexity. Can you build a multihull without staying the rig? More complexity. More cost. And trailering? Now you need to fold things. Even more complexity! More cost! Where does it end!
>
> Keep smiling!
>
> John
>
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Topolski <public@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand why we don't make the logical leap from these criteria - go above and beyond the conclusion of a narrow hull - wider square boat - trailered - own lifeboat- fun daysailer - unsinkable... and you end up with a multihull.
> >
> > The first and farthest ocean going vessels - shoal draft - safer - faster - much more stable - own-life-boats... setting aside hull construction time and cost [which are not mentioned strongly in the prior post] this becomes the logical conclusion of the logic Bolger has shared with us.
> >
> > http://www.seaworthysolutions.net/f/Seaclipper_24_Trimaran_Study_Plans.pdf
> >
> > Now if you are talking looks (in the eye of the beholder) or tradition (each to his own again) that's another story. But those arguments lack logic, and the poster did not wax long about aesthetics in their post.
> >
> > .... i'd still rig it Bolger Chebacco style - wide and low and sticking off both ends ...
> >
> > All the Best,
> > Stefan
> >
> > "One gathers peace as a feather in the palm of one's hand." -anonymous
> >
> > Stefan Topolski MD
> > Assist. Professor, U. of Massachusetts Medical School
> > Clinical Instructor, U. of New England
> > Founder and Director of
> > Caring in Community, Inc. 501(c)3
> > 1105 Mohawk Trail
> > Shelburne Falls, Ma.
> >
> > http://www.cottagemed.org
> >
> >
> >
>

The number of tons of pressure needed to bend 1/2" steel plate is something
huge, even if heated.  Look it up.  And look up at what temperature steel looses
strength and will be able to be deformed relatively easily.  You could weld up a
contraption and use hydralic pressure to deform the steel, after you heated it,
but protected the contraption from the heat.  But once you figure all this out
you will realize why it costs so much to have the steel bent for you.

Cut it into strips and bolt it on.

Eric



--- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hamill" <mhamill1@...> wrote:
>
> There is also Wasser Tar and Epoxy Tar made by most paint companies (for
example ClovaTar made by Cloverdale Paint in Canada) and just plain old hot tar
with a burlap backing (if you even need the backing??) or Zinc Primer and epoxy
paint
>
> Bottle or House jacks may work to bend between logs pushing against ??
>
> Wasser Tar  http://www.wassercoatings.com/specialty.html
> ClovaTar
22-http://www.cloverdalepaint.com/contractor_professional/product.asp?code=83022
> Or International/Devoe Devtar 5A
http://www.international-pc.com/PDS/4507+P+eng-usa+LTR.pdf
>

I am sort of interested in the discussion on bending ½” steel bottom plate for installation on the AS29.  Has anyone looked up Mr. Bolger’s original design brief or the building directions to see how he thought the installation should be done?  As a practical sort of person, Bolger seemed to usually envision methods/techniques to build his designs.  Maybe the answer is in the building notes??  Regards, SSK

-----

No virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4996 - Release Date: 05/13/12

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2171 / Virus Database: 2425/4996 - Release Date: 05/13/12