Browse Groups

• Here s an instance IMHO of missing some real value by being too conservative. If I understand V/L = 1 you need to get into the range of V/L = 1.6 to V/L = 2.5
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 15, 2005
View Source
Here's an instance IMHO of missing some real value by being too
conservative. If I understand V/L = 1 you need to get into the range
of V/L = 1.6 to V/L = 2.5 to find the best efficiency for furthest
traveled for power boats. I'm thinking specifically of the tunnel
stern designs. Go back in the list and find some posts
from "oldbingey" about Rescue Minor with links to the boat he built
for a pleasant surprise.

Nice to see someone else here from San Antonio. Would you like to
meet? I don't have much to offer in the way of stuff to show you
since my collection of bug infested old magazines and stuff was
destroyed in a flood:-) Still I'd like any advice I could get and a
chance to hear your views of things.

I'm currently waiting for the arrival of the plans of Russel R. as a
project to allow me to build a boat in Brazil which I will use to
explore the Pantanal and then sell at the end of the adventure.

John Dolph

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Which hull shape at http://www.atkinboatplans.com/ do you believe to
> be most efficient?
>
> Let's define efficient as requiring the least horsepower to move the
> boat through the water at at the hull speed of V/L = 1 - in other
> words, the square root of the water line length.
>
> An additional way to look at "most efficient" would be to choose the
> hull that would take the least fuel to go the farthest - at V/L = 1.
>
> Maybe they're the same thing?
>
> Anyway, which hull(s) of Atkin's fits this criteria?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Leo
• ... I think your criteria needs to be a little better defined. Reducing displacement for a given waterline will reduce the power reqirement. Ultimately the
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 15, 2005
View Source
--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Which hull shape at http://www.atkinboatplans.com/ do you believe to
> be most efficient?
>
> Let's define efficient as requiring the least horsepower to move the
> boat through the water at at the hull speed of V/L = 1 - in other
> words, the square root of the water line length.
>
> An additional way to look at "most efficient" would be to choose the
> hull that would take the least fuel to go the farthest - at V/L = 1.
>
> Maybe they're the same thing?
>

I think your criteria needs to be a little better defined. Reducing
displacement for a given waterline will reduce the power reqirement.
Ultimately the most efficient is the hull most closely approximating
a kayak.

Amos
• For a boat designed to plane, the most efficient speed will be somewhere above it s minimum planing speed, but a slippery displacement boat will have higher
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 16, 2005
View Source
For a boat designed to plane, the most efficient speed will be somewhere
above it's minimum planing speed, but a slippery displacement boat will have
higher efficiency than that running well below "hull speed". Mr. Bingey down
there in Georgia is getting some amazing milage out of his Rescue Minor (he
writes about it in the latest Messing About in Boats also), but the same
engine pushing the same weight of slippery displacement boat should get even
better milage.

Which brings up the problem with this thread: we need some valid means of
comparison. Without specifying a speed or a load the smallest, lightest boat
in the Atkin catalog will be the most "efficient". It won't go very fast, or
carry much of anything, but it will go slow with very little effort. I
disagree with Ron though, I think Katydidn't or Petey Dink CM would be at
least as light as Precious, have less wetted surface and a sleeker shape.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:47:31 -0000, John D wrote:
>
> Here's an instance IMHO of missing some real value by being too
> conservative. If I understand V/L = 1 you need to get into the range
> of V/L = 1.6 to V/L = 2.5 to find the best efficiency for furthest
> traveled for power boats. I'm thinking specifically of the tunnel
> stern designs. Go back in the list and find some posts
> from "oldbingey" about Rescue Minor with links to the boat he built
> for a pleasant surprise.
> ...

--
John <jkohnen@...>
A paranoid is a man who knows a little of what's going on.
<William Burroughs>
• Ah, yes John, BUT... Precious can be rowed, sailed, or use a small outboard motor; is easier to construct because she is flat bottomed; and is designed to
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 16, 2005
View Source
Ah, yes John, BUT...

Precious can be rowed, sailed, or use a small outboard motor; is easier to construct because she is
flat bottomed; and is designed to carry two people.

HENCE:
1. Precious utilizes any of the three primary forms of propulsion and can therefore use the cheapest form of energy available - read: more EFFICIENT to operate;
2. Precious is easier, cheaper, and faster to construct - therefore more EFFICIENT in building;
3. Will carry two people safely and easily and "dry-ly" - a dry-passenger-is-a-happy-passenger, which in turn leads to less complaints and therefore less stress, ultimately allowing for greater productivity in all aspects of living - a more EFFICIENT lifestyle.

Precious wins "hands down" IMHO.

Ron Fossum

----- Original Message -----
From: jkohnen@...
To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: [AtkinBoats] Re: Most Efficient Hull??

For a boat designed to plane, the most efficient speed will be somewhere
above it's minimum planing speed, but a slippery displacement boat will have
higher efficiency than that running well below "hull speed". Mr. Bingey down
there in Georgia is getting some amazing milage out of his Rescue Minor (he
writes about it in the latest Messing About in Boats also), but the same
engine pushing the same weight of slippery displacement boat should get even
better milage.

Which brings up the problem with this thread: we need some valid means of
comparison. Without specifying a speed or a load the smallest, lightest boat
in the Atkin catalog will be the most "efficient". It won't go very fast, or
carry much of anything, but it will go slow with very little effort. I
disagree with Ron though, I think Katydidn't or Petey Dink CM would be at
least as light as Precious, have less wetted surface and a sleeker shape.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:47:31 -0000, John D wrote:
>
> Here's an instance IMHO of missing some real value by being too
> conservative. If I understand V/L = 1 you need to get into the range
> of V/L = 1.6 to V/L = 2.5 to find the best efficiency for furthest
> traveled for power boats. I'm thinking specifically of the tunnel
> stern designs. Go back in the list and find some posts
> from "oldbingey" about Rescue Minor with links to the boat he built
> for a pleasant surprise.
> ...

--
John <jkohnen@...>
A paranoid is a man who knows a little of what's going on.
<William Burroughs>

No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be polite.

If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.

The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
<http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• I suppose that this is an excellent example of why text only messaging has so many limitations. I ass-u-me ed that my specifying a V/L of 1.0 would point
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 16, 2005
View Source
I suppose that this is an excellent example of why text only messaging
has so many limitations.

I ass-u-me'ed that my specifying a V/L of 1.0 would point everyone to
a displacement hull. But that was obviously incorrect.

We have folks replying with dinghy's and planning boats as examples.
While I can't deny that these boats can be or are very efficient, I
was actually thinking of power displacement hulls in the 25' to
40-ish' range.

Generally speaking - while realizing that exceptions do exist - I
believe that a long narrow displacement hull form will be able to
carry a larger load - read cruising supplies - longer distances with
more comfort using less fuel than other types of boats.

So now that I've explained my thought process a bit, I again ask -
with some added verbage - which power displacement hull design on the
atkin web site do you believe would be most efficient?

Thanks - and with apologies for the earlier confusion.

Leo

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Which hull shape at http://www.atkinboatplans.com/ do you believe to
> be most efficient?
• The folks who really work at efficiency are those wishing to obtain maximum speed with very limited power--competitive rowers and paddlers. These folks have
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
The folks who really work at efficiency are those wishing to obtain maximum speed with very limited power--competitive rowers and paddlers. These folks have determined that long, narrow hulls with semi-circular cross sections and very fine ends are the most efficient.

Semi circular cross sections are workable if there is some mechanism to keep the boat from turning over such as the outrigger effect of oars or dynamic paddling (and it helps to part your hair in the middle). Power boats don't have such mechanisms, so a true round bottom isn't an option. Moreover, the sort of 6 or 7 to 1 beam length ratio found on canoes makes for a very cramped 40 foot power boat.

A review of the plans catalogue is a little frustrating because some of the writeups do not include the beam. It could be argued that the most efficient hull is "Slipby" which is supposed to make over 11 mph on 5 1/2 hp. However, "Slipby" is a lot smaller than you are considering. Perhaps "Jabborwock" is the mst efficient in the type you're considering.

This discussion reminds me of the time I had to break up a fist fight between 2 nine year olds who were arguing over whether a Ferrari was faster than a Lamborghini. Fun to wonder about but not something I'm going to have any first hand experience with.

John T

----- Original Message -----
From: Leo
To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 10:22 PM
Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: Most Efficient Hull??

I suppose that this is an excellent example of why text only messaging
has so many limitations.

I ass-u-me'ed that my specifying a V/L of 1.0 would point everyone to
a displacement hull. But that was obviously incorrect.

We have folks replying with dinghy's and planning boats as examples.
While I can't deny that these boats can be or are very efficient, I
was actually thinking of power displacement hulls in the 25' to
40-ish' range.

Generally speaking - while realizing that exceptions do exist - I
believe that a long narrow displacement hull form will be able to
carry a larger load - read cruising supplies - longer distances with
more comfort using less fuel than other types of boats.

So now that I've explained my thought process a bit, I again ask -
with some added verbage - which power displacement hull design on the
atkin web site do you believe would be most efficient?

Thanks - and with apologies for the earlier confusion.

Leo

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Which hull shape at http://www.atkinboatplans.com/ do you believe to
> be most efficient?

No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be polite.

If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.

The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
<http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• For your purposes I would recommend Rosdave, Seal, or Danceing Feather. Rosdave will move very economically at V/L=1 with just a 8HP Yanmar; how ever she will
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
For your purposes I would recommend Rosdave, Seal, or Danceing
Feather.

Rosdave will move very economically at V/L=1 with just a 8HP Yanmar;
how ever she will be challenging to plank. If you look at the
diagonals you will see that the diagonal closest to the keel has some
pretty extreme bends at the ends. Those are the bends you will have
to follow with a plank; not easy. Seal and Dancing Feather have less
problems with this. Seal and Dancing Feather demonstrate another
problem in that with a safe and seaworthy hull form pure displacement
hulls quickly generate more displacement than needed to carry a
pleasure boat interior and ballast is needed to get them to their
design waterlines. Canoes without ballast of 40 feet are not safe or
comfortable for their inhabitants on the ocean so you won't find such
designs. This continues until you reach ship sizes where ocean waves
are much smaller than the hull. This explains the popularity
of "lifting hulls". Rosdave will in fact generate a small amount of
lift, many of the v-bottoms on the site will also generate lift and
the designers notes are the best guide to which generate most unless
someone has actually built them and tested. What you are looking for
might be described as "the best solution of a motorized canoe with
ballast". Well at least that imparts the idea I'm trying to get
across:-)

Mike Dolph
--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
>
> I suppose that this is an excellent example of why text only
messaging
> has so many limitations.
>
> I ass-u-me'ed that my specifying a V/L of 1.0 would point everyone
to
> a displacement hull. But that was obviously incorrect.
>
> We have folks replying with dinghy's and planning boats as
examples.
> While I can't deny that these boats can be or are very efficient, I
> was actually thinking of power displacement hulls in the 25' to
> 40-ish' range.
>
> Generally speaking - while realizing that exceptions do exist - I
> believe that a long narrow displacement hull form will be able to
> carry a larger load - read cruising supplies - longer distances with
> more comfort using less fuel than other types of boats.
>
> So now that I've explained my thought process a bit, I again ask -
> with some added verbage - which power displacement hull design on
the
> atkin web site do you believe would be most efficient?
>
> Thanks - and with apologies for the earlier confusion.
>
> Leo
>
>
> --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Which hull shape at http://www.atkinboatplans.com/ do you believe
to
> > be most efficient?
• Leo I d have to agree with John T. that a Double ender like Jabberwock would be the most efficient also the most seaworthy. Double enders are very dry in rough
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
Leo

I'd have to agree with John T. that a Double ender like Jabberwock
would be the most efficient also the most seaworthy. Double enders are
very dry in rough weather. I gave serious thought to getting plans for
in has full standing head room and is a boat with the Atkins used
often and liked very much.

Jim F

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
>
>
> Which hull shape at http://www.atkinboatplans.com/ do you believe to
> be most efficient?
>
> Let's define efficient as requiring the least horsepower to move the
> boat through the water at at the hull speed of V/L = 1 - in other
> words, the square root of the water line length.
>
> An additional way to look at "most efficient" would be to choose the
> hull that would take the least fuel to go the farthest - at V/L = 1.
>
> Maybe they're the same thing?
>
> Anyway, which hull(s) of Atkin's fits this criteria?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Leo
• Describing River Belle the 35 3 Tunnel-Stern River Cruiser William Atkin writes : The hull is easily propelled and for equal displacement and power is
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
Describing "River Belle" the 35'3" Tunnel-Stern River Cruiser William
Atkin writes : " The hull is easily propelled and for equal
displacement and power is faster by several miles than the usual
underwater form. And these boats ... handle perfectly,ahead,astern
in rough water or smooth ." The first boat of this model was designed
At this time most of the boats had semicircular displacement hulls
with l/b ratios up to 1/7 ( and more ) and were difficult to build
with big and heavy motors throwing big bow waves and rolling heavily
in a seaway. Later on hulls of Cats and Tris were constructed in a
similiar way with semicircular bottoms and with hardly any
hydrodynamic lift when moving.
From this point of view William Atkin was a Genius and a
Visionär ( german Language ) as he knew a lot more of the water
around his boats as others up to our days.
From my personal experience watching University tank tests I think
that the "Sand Piper" design also is very effective. And this is the
same for the Higgins Landing Boats which helped to end the Nazi
Terror.
I think that these hulls deserve to undergo intensive tank testing
to understand fully the Atkin designs and to minimize the vortices
(whorls ?), waves and eddies caused by the hull moving through the
water.In my opinion these hulls have a great potential of
hydrodynamic efficiency. Regards, Manfred
• Manfred: I have read your postings here (and, I think, in other boat design forums). As you seem to have access to tank testing facilities, I wonder if it
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
Manfred:

I have read your postings here (and, I think, in other boat design forums). As you seem to have access to tank testing facilities, I wonder if it would not be a worthwhile project to take the Sea Bright tunnel stern hulls - which Atkin designed in many lengths - and model them for tank testing (for the modern builder, probably the designs which could be built of plywood would have the most interest). There is a desire to have stable, shallow draft pleasure boats that will cruise comfortably in the 15 - 18 mph range (ask any family which has a 30+ mph plastic boat and you'll find - after they've owned it a year or so - that comfortable, non-pounding would be welcomed, even if at a decreased speed). I believe that the tests would show remarkable efficiency, seakindliness and seaworthiness.

I would think that there would be a large base for these designs in Europe with it's many river, lakes, and canals - and with fuel costs much higher there, an efficient hull using less power would seem a potential "best seller". The Atkin tunnel stern Sea Brights are not well known even in the USA, so probably not at all in Europe.

Sometime this year I expect to start work on an adaptation of Rescue Minor, but mine will be powered by a reasonably compact steam plant with normal crusing at 1000 rpm (although 2000 rpm will be possible). The shallow draft and "beachability" as well as ease in trailering and modest weight are just what I want for cruising on lakes, rivers, and the occasional trailer from Portland, OR to Puget Sound. I've lived on and around the water most of my 65 years and spent the last 3+ years searching for the "right" design for my needs and desires. I believe the Rescue Minor is it (Thanks, John, for setting up the AtkinBoatPlans website - I probably couldn't have done it without you!).

Ron Fossum
----- Original Message -----
From: liokai2002
To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:29 AM
Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: Most Efficient Hull??

Describing "River Belle" the 35'3" Tunnel-Stern River Cruiser William
Atkin writes : " The hull is easily propelled and for equal
displacement and power is faster by several miles than the usual
underwater form. And these boats ... handle perfectly,ahead,astern
in rough water or smooth ." The first boat of this model was designed
At this time most of the boats had semicircular displacement hulls
with l/b ratios up to 1/7 ( and more ) and were difficult to build
with big and heavy motors throwing big bow waves and rolling heavily
in a seaway. Later on hulls of Cats and Tris were constructed in a
similiar way with semicircular bottoms and with hardly any
hydrodynamic lift when moving.
>From this point of view William Atkin was a Genius and a
Visionär ( german Language ) as he knew a lot more of the water
around his boats as others up to our days.
>From my personal experience watching University tank tests I think
that the "Sand Piper" design also is very effective. And this is the
same for the Higgins Landing Boats which helped to end the Nazi
Terror.
I think that these hulls deserve to undergo intensive tank testing
to understand fully the Atkin designs and to minimize the vortices
(whorls ?), waves and eddies caused by the hull moving through the
water.In my opinion these hulls have a great potential of
hydrodynamic efficiency. Regards, Manfred

No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be polite.

If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.

The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
<http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Back when internal combustion engines were first becoming available – whether gas or diesel – these engines were massive chunks of cast iron and had very
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
Back when internal combustion engines were first becoming available 
whether gas or diesel  these engines were massive chunks of cast
iron and had very low HP to weight ratios. Maybe on the order of 1HP
per 100 pounds. Today's engines might have 10-20 HP output per 100
pounds of weight. Refer back to the comments about Rescue Minor and
how the bow acts without the motor weight that Atkin specified for an
example.

So back when Atkin was designing, motors were very underpowered and
the hull really needed to be "slippery" to fully take advantage of
the low power that was available in those days from IC engines. And
yes, I know I'm sorta downplaying, for now, the effect that torque
has on turning a large propeller slowly.

Based on my reading, early displacement power boat hulls evolved from
sailboat hulls that were "sorta" efficient. Obviously the science of
designing efficient displacement power boat hulls progressed rapidly 
as NA's learned what worked best and what was less desirable.

It seems to me that as engines become both more powerful and the
power to weight ratio improved, that the hull shapes started moving
away from what slipped through the water easiest and began evolving
into the "fat-ish" hulls of trawlers and cargo boats and that
evolution has progressed into the modern plastic floating apartments
that grace (or is that disgrace?) trade magazines and marina's the
world over.

Having recently read a history of the Whitehall Rowing boat, I began
to wonder why this hull form, with its fine entry, generous mid-
section and wineglass stern wasn't expanded upon for inboard power.
What's the drawback from scaling this general design up to make it a
30-40 footer? Perhaps direct 1:1 scaling isn't practical, but why
couldn't one incorporate the fine entry, general midships section and
the fine stern sections into a power boat hull? To my very untrained
eye, it appears that Atkin did use some of these three design
principles in several of his designs.

IIRC, from Gerr's books and others, a large diameter, aggressively
pitched slow turning propeller is more efficient for moving a
displacement hull than a smaller less pitched propeller turning at
higher speeds. Or is my memory getting as gray as my hair?

It seems to be a difficult task in today's world to find folks that
agree with this philosophy. Almost all modern (inboard diesel) boat
propulsion systems rely on high speed engines  many with
turbochargers  to turn a smaller wheel. Gear ratio's in the 2:1 
2.5:1 are common. This translates into prop RPM's from the low range
of 750 RPM to a high of 1800 RPM when the 2:1 geared engine is wound
to 3600 RPM.

Yet just a few decades ago we had engines that idled at 300-400 RPM
(or less) and had an operating RPM range from 700 to 1200. These
engines ran for literally tens of thousands of hours nearly trouble
free. Nowadays we often hear of inboard diesels needing replacement
in as little as 2000 operating hours. Throwaway power. Yuck!

I believe that we can generally agree that 1) how/where you want to
go with a boat, 2) how long you want to stay aboard and 3) how
much `camping' you're willing to tolerate determines what type, size
and amenities we'll need. And finally, 4) aesthetics. How a boat
looks to our eye is vital. And as each of us has different needs and
tastes, I believe all 4 of these considerations are classic cases
where Your Mileage May Vary. ;-)

Addressing #1. My wife is a teacher and a decade younger  I want to
be able to put the boat on a trailer and go for her summer vacation
to Alaska via the inside passage this summer, The Erie Canal next 
Maine and Nova Scotia another  Trent-Severn waterway another. When
we're both retired then on to the Bahamas for the winter and back to
Alaska for an extended trip. Maybe put it aboard a freighter and
ship it to France for a couple of years living on the European canal
system.

Addressing #2. At first we're only talking about 10-12 weeks at a
stretch. Later it could be full time for a few years  or at least 8-
9 months out of 12.

Addressing #3. At first  we can tolerate a bit more `roughing it'
for a few weeks, but some of the things that we will not do without 
(not an all inclusive list) 1) space to get away from each other when
need to. 2) a great galley with room enough to prepare a full meal
without contortions of the body or with the pots and pans. 3) full
length and width berth(s) with comfy mattresses. 4) a separate full
sized shower  no sopping TP! 5) an all weather pilot station 
either fully enclosed or enclosable with canvas.

Addressing #4. I just plain like boats that look like a classic
boat. None of this plastic fantastic modern European shapes for me.
Give me the lines of an Elco or a Lake Union Dream Boat or a double
ended Salmon Troller or the shape of a Whitehall. Give me a nice
sheer and a plumb bow. How about bronze ports  either oval or
round  and a rearward sloping windshield instead of that forward
sloping monstrosity, regardless of how practical it is. Bottom
line? Spare me the angular constructs that adorn so many marina's
and boat shows.

Finally, I think we can all agree that petroleum products  oil, gas,
natural gas and diesel fuel  are just going to get more and more
expensive. The days of a buck a gallon diesel are probably long
gone. So this means that to have a boat that I can afford to
operate, it must be very efficient. I'd consider 7-10 statute MPG
the minimum  this should equate to less than 1 gallon per hour of
running, in other words, 6-8 knots cruising speed at less than 1
GPH. Better than that is just that, better. I think that this is
achievable in a 35'-ish boat if we don't load it down with a ton of
canned goods. Something less than 20,000 pounds  15,0000 better
yet - fully ready to cruise would be the goal. My preliminary
investigations and calculations indicate that given the right hull
design and using modern epoxy/ply building methods this appears to be
an achievable goal.

Finally, utilize a big ol' slow turning engine with either a VPP or a
big-ish wheel and set it up to cruise at a V/L of about 1 to 1.15 at
the most efficient fuel consumption RPM for the engine  probably
less than 1500 RPM - and one should have a boat that one could afford
to build and run without breaking the 401k and would be worthy of
being called a Retirement Cruiser.

perfect boat for cruising the ICW and the various canals, waterways
and rivers. But would this design be suitable for an Alaska trip or
a trip to the Bahamas or a summer on the Great Lakes or the coast of
Maine and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Perhaps not. So I still
think to go to all the various places that I'd like to visit before I
die, I need a boat with some sort of keel and the ability to take
some rough weather should the unfortunate happen.

Any other suggestions?

Best,

Leo
• Leo-- When slow turning motors were very heavy and conventionally planked (carvel or lapstrake) were developed to float them, boats were kept in the water, and
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
Leo--

When slow turning motors were very heavy and conventionally planked (carvel or lapstrake) were developed to float them, boats were kept in the water, and trailering was not a consideration.

If you want a boat that can live on a trailer, the first consideration is the type of tow vehicle you are willing to support. The big trucks and truck based sport utes can tow a pretty big boat; most cars can only tow around 1000 to 1500 and at the upper ends of this limit, gas consumption will decline significantly.

Then you need to consider how well a given type of construction will hold up to being dry sailed and bounced around on a trailer. Carvel won't take it. Boats which rely on lots of mechanical fastenings tend to get real loose after a couple of hundred miles on rough roads. Probably plywood or fiberglass over strip planking are your best bets.

I have looked for "big ol slow turning engines", and I haven't found any yet--seems I'm about 10 to 15 years too late. The closest thing I've found is a variety of kits for steam engines. They look like a lot of fun, but I don't have the skills or tools to build one, nor the committment to run one.

As far as getting all the amenities you are looking for in an easy to trailer boat, I just don't think it is possible. If you figure it out, let me know!

John T
----- Original Message -----
From: Leo
To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 3:35 PM
Subject: [AtkinBoats] Easily driven boats

Back when internal combustion engines were first becoming available -
whether gas or diesel - these engines were massive chunks of cast
iron and had very low HP to weight ratios. Maybe on the order of 1HP
per 100 pounds. Today's engines might have 10-20 HP output per 100
pounds of weight. Refer back to the comments about Rescue Minor and
how the bow acts without the motor weight that Atkin specified for an
example.

So back when Atkin was designing, motors were very underpowered and
the hull really needed to be "slippery" to fully take advantage of
the low power that was available in those days from IC engines. And
yes, I know I'm sorta downplaying, for now, the effect that torque
has on turning a large propeller slowly.

Based on my reading, early displacement power boat hulls evolved from
sailboat hulls that were "sorta" efficient. Obviously the science of
designing efficient displacement power boat hulls progressed rapidly -
as NA's learned what worked best and what was less desirable.

It seems to me that as engines become both more powerful and the
power to weight ratio improved, that the hull shapes started moving
away from what slipped through the water easiest and began evolving
into the "fat-ish" hulls of trawlers and cargo boats and that
evolution has progressed into the modern plastic floating apartments
that grace (or is that disgrace?) trade magazines and marina's the
world over.

Having recently read a history of the Whitehall Rowing boat, I began
to wonder why this hull form, with its fine entry, generous mid-
section and wineglass stern wasn't expanded upon for inboard power.
What's the drawback from scaling this general design up to make it a
30-40 footer? Perhaps direct 1:1 scaling isn't practical, but why
couldn't one incorporate the fine entry, general midships section and
the fine stern sections into a power boat hull? To my very untrained
eye, it appears that Atkin did use some of these three design
principles in several of his designs.

IIRC, from Gerr's books and others, a large diameter, aggressively
pitched slow turning propeller is more efficient for moving a
displacement hull than a smaller less pitched propeller turning at
higher speeds. Or is my memory getting as gray as my hair?

It seems to be a difficult task in today's world to find folks that
agree with this philosophy. Almost all modern (inboard diesel) boat
propulsion systems rely on high speed engines - many with
turbochargers - to turn a smaller wheel. Gear ratio's in the 2:1 -
2.5:1 are common. This translates into prop RPM's from the low range
of 750 RPM to a high of 1800 RPM when the 2:1 geared engine is wound
to 3600 RPM.

Yet just a few decades ago we had engines that idled at 300-400 RPM
(or less) and had an operating RPM range from 700 to 1200. These
engines ran for literally tens of thousands of hours nearly trouble
free. Nowadays we often hear of inboard diesels needing replacement
in as little as 2000 operating hours. Throwaway power. Yuck!

I believe that we can generally agree that 1) how/where you want to
go with a boat, 2) how long you want to stay aboard and 3) how
much `camping' you're willing to tolerate determines what type, size
and amenities we'll need. And finally, 4) aesthetics. How a boat
looks to our eye is vital. And as each of us has different needs and
tastes, I believe all 4 of these considerations are classic cases
where Your Mileage May Vary. ;-)

Addressing #1. My wife is a teacher and a decade younger - I want to
be able to put the boat on a trailer and go for her summer vacation
to Alaska via the inside passage this summer, The Erie Canal next -
Maine and Nova Scotia another - Trent-Severn waterway another. When
we're both retired then on to the Bahamas for the winter and back to
Alaska for an extended trip. Maybe put it aboard a freighter and
ship it to France for a couple of years living on the European canal
system.

Addressing #2. At first we're only talking about 10-12 weeks at a
stretch. Later it could be full time for a few years - or at least 8-
9 months out of 12.

Addressing #3. At first - we can tolerate a bit more `roughing it'
for a few weeks, but some of the things that we will not do without -
(not an all inclusive list) 1) space to get away from each other when
need to. 2) a great galley with room enough to prepare a full meal
without contortions of the body or with the pots and pans. 3) full
length and width berth(s) with comfy mattresses. 4) a separate full
sized shower - no sopping TP! 5) an all weather pilot station -
either fully enclosed or enclosable with canvas.

Addressing #4. I just plain like boats that look like a classic
boat. None of this plastic fantastic modern European shapes for me.
Give me the lines of an Elco or a Lake Union Dream Boat or a double
ended Salmon Troller or the shape of a Whitehall. Give me a nice
sheer and a plumb bow. How about bronze ports - either oval or
round - and a rearward sloping windshield instead of that forward
sloping monstrosity, regardless of how practical it is. Bottom
line? Spare me the angular constructs that adorn so many marina's
and boat shows.

Finally, I think we can all agree that petroleum products - oil, gas,
natural gas and diesel fuel - are just going to get more and more
expensive. The days of a buck a gallon diesel are probably long
gone. So this means that to have a boat that I can afford to
operate, it must be very efficient. I'd consider 7-10 statute MPG
the minimum - this should equate to less than 1 gallon per hour of
running, in other words, 6-8 knots cruising speed at less than 1
GPH. Better than that is just that, better. I think that this is
achievable in a 35'-ish boat if we don't load it down with a ton of
canned goods. Something less than 20,000 pounds - 15,0000 better
yet - fully ready to cruise would be the goal. My preliminary
investigations and calculations indicate that given the right hull
design and using modern epoxy/ply building methods this appears to be
an achievable goal.

Finally, utilize a big ol' slow turning engine with either a VPP or a
big-ish wheel and set it up to cruise at a V/L of about 1 to 1.15 at
the most efficient fuel consumption RPM for the engine - probably
less than 1500 RPM - and one should have a boat that one could afford
to build and run without breaking the 401k and would be worthy of
being called a Retirement Cruiser.

perfect boat for cruising the ICW and the various canals, waterways
and rivers. But would this design be suitable for an Alaska trip or
a trip to the Bahamas or a summer on the Great Lakes or the coast of
Maine and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Perhaps not. So I still
think to go to all the various places that I'd like to visit before I
die, I need a boat with some sort of keel and the ability to take
some rough weather should the unfortunate happen.

Any other suggestions?

Best,

Leo

No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be polite.

If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.

The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
<http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Engines: check out SABB (not Saab) diesels. These are a Norwegian (Norske is always better than Swede anyway) made engines of relatively low rpms with a
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
Engines: check out SABB (not Saab) diesels. These are a Norwegian (Norske is always better than Swede anyway) made engines of relatively low rpms with a variable pitch propeller. The vibration is minimal and, if you have to, they can be crank started. The 10 HP (real 10 HP) is a vibration dampened engine and burns 4.5 PINTS of fuel per hour at 10 HP output. I've ridden in 2 boats that had this engine installed and it was a very pleasureable ride. The larger 18 - 30 HP is two cylinder with the same quiet, lack of vibration, and fuel economy. Use the Google search engine and enter Sabb engine (ignore Google's prompt "did you mean saab engine") and you'll find a plethora of websites!

For a hull design I would look at a modification (sorry John, forget there was no "swearing" allowed) of "Ghost". If the engine were moved forward, the after open cockpit could be enclosed giving the additional interior space you desire. I think a competent naval architect could make the modifications (it would be worth the money as this will be a long term possession). She would not be a "true" Atkin design but certainly could be called "inspired by a design of William Atkin".

Ron Fossum

----- Original Message -----
From: Leo
To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 12:35 PM
Subject: [AtkinBoats] Easily driven boats

Back when internal combustion engines were first becoming available -
whether gas or diesel - these engines were massive chunks of cast
iron and had very low HP to weight ratios. Maybe on the order of 1HP
per 100 pounds. Today's engines might have 10-20 HP output per 100
pounds of weight. Refer back to the comments about Rescue Minor and
how the bow acts without the motor weight that Atkin specified for an
example.

So back when Atkin was designing, motors were very underpowered and
the hull really needed to be "slippery" to fully take advantage of
the low power that was available in those days from IC engines. And
yes, I know I'm sorta downplaying, for now, the effect that torque
has on turning a large propeller slowly.

Based on my reading, early displacement power boat hulls evolved from
sailboat hulls that were "sorta" efficient. Obviously the science of
designing efficient displacement power boat hulls progressed rapidly -
as NA's learned what worked best and what was less desirable.

It seems to me that as engines become both more powerful and the
power to weight ratio improved, that the hull shapes started moving
away from what slipped through the water easiest and began evolving
into the "fat-ish" hulls of trawlers and cargo boats and that
evolution has progressed into the modern plastic floating apartments
that grace (or is that disgrace?) trade magazines and marina's the
world over.

Having recently read a history of the Whitehall Rowing boat, I began
to wonder why this hull form, with its fine entry, generous mid-
section and wineglass stern wasn't expanded upon for inboard power.
What's the drawback from scaling this general design up to make it a
30-40 footer? Perhaps direct 1:1 scaling isn't practical, but why
couldn't one incorporate the fine entry, general midships section and
the fine stern sections into a power boat hull? To my very untrained
eye, it appears that Atkin did use some of these three design
principles in several of his designs.

IIRC, from Gerr's books and others, a large diameter, aggressively
pitched slow turning propeller is more efficient for moving a
displacement hull than a smaller less pitched propeller turning at
higher speeds. Or is my memory getting as gray as my hair?

It seems to be a difficult task in today's world to find folks that
agree with this philosophy. Almost all modern (inboard diesel) boat
propulsion systems rely on high speed engines - many with
turbochargers - to turn a smaller wheel. Gear ratio's in the 2:1 -
2.5:1 are common. This translates into prop RPM's from the low range
of 750 RPM to a high of 1800 RPM when the 2:1 geared engine is wound
to 3600 RPM.

Yet just a few decades ago we had engines that idled at 300-400 RPM
(or less) and had an operating RPM range from 700 to 1200. These
engines ran for literally tens of thousands of hours nearly trouble
free. Nowadays we often hear of inboard diesels needing replacement
in as little as 2000 operating hours. Throwaway power. Yuck!

I believe that we can generally agree that 1) how/where you want to
go with a boat, 2) how long you want to stay aboard and 3) how
much `camping' you're willing to tolerate determines what type, size
and amenities we'll need. And finally, 4) aesthetics. How a boat
looks to our eye is vital. And as each of us has different needs and
tastes, I believe all 4 of these considerations are classic cases
where Your Mileage May Vary. ;-)

Addressing #1. My wife is a teacher and a decade younger - I want to
be able to put the boat on a trailer and go for her summer vacation
to Alaska via the inside passage this summer, The Erie Canal next -
Maine and Nova Scotia another - Trent-Severn waterway another. When
we're both retired then on to the Bahamas for the winter and back to
Alaska for an extended trip. Maybe put it aboard a freighter and
ship it to France for a couple of years living on the European canal
system.

Addressing #2. At first we're only talking about 10-12 weeks at a
stretch. Later it could be full time for a few years - or at least 8-
9 months out of 12.

Addressing #3. At first - we can tolerate a bit more `roughing it'
for a few weeks, but some of the things that we will not do without -
(not an all inclusive list) 1) space to get away from each other when
need to. 2) a great galley with room enough to prepare a full meal
without contortions of the body or with the pots and pans. 3) full
length and width berth(s) with comfy mattresses. 4) a separate full
sized shower - no sopping TP! 5) an all weather pilot station -
either fully enclosed or enclosable with canvas.

Addressing #4. I just plain like boats that look like a classic
boat. None of this plastic fantastic modern European shapes for me.
Give me the lines of an Elco or a Lake Union Dream Boat or a double
ended Salmon Troller or the shape of a Whitehall. Give me a nice
sheer and a plumb bow. How about bronze ports - either oval or
round - and a rearward sloping windshield instead of that forward
sloping monstrosity, regardless of how practical it is. Bottom
line? Spare me the angular constructs that adorn so many marina's
and boat shows.

Finally, I think we can all agree that petroleum products - oil, gas,
natural gas and diesel fuel - are just going to get more and more
expensive. The days of a buck a gallon diesel are probably long
gone. So this means that to have a boat that I can afford to
operate, it must be very efficient. I'd consider 7-10 statute MPG
the minimum - this should equate to less than 1 gallon per hour of
running, in other words, 6-8 knots cruising speed at less than 1
GPH. Better than that is just that, better. I think that this is
achievable in a 35'-ish boat if we don't load it down with a ton of
canned goods. Something less than 20,000 pounds - 15,0000 better
yet - fully ready to cruise would be the goal. My preliminary
investigations and calculations indicate that given the right hull
design and using modern epoxy/ply building methods this appears to be
an achievable goal.

Finally, utilize a big ol' slow turning engine with either a VPP or a
big-ish wheel and set it up to cruise at a V/L of about 1 to 1.15 at
the most efficient fuel consumption RPM for the engine - probably
less than 1500 RPM - and one should have a boat that one could afford
to build and run without breaking the 401k and would be worthy of
being called a Retirement Cruiser.

perfect boat for cruising the ICW and the various canals, waterways
and rivers. But would this design be suitable for an Alaska trip or
a trip to the Bahamas or a summer on the Great Lakes or the coast of
Maine and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Perhaps not. So I still
think to go to all the various places that I'd like to visit before I
die, I need a boat with some sort of keel and the ability to take
some rough weather should the unfortunate happen.

Any other suggestions?

Best,

Leo

No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be polite.

If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.

The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
<http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• ... wrote: [snip] ... to trailer boat, I just don t think it is possible. If you figure it out, let me know! ... John, The one word that
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
<John.Trussell@w...> wrote:
[snip]
> As far as getting all the amenities you are looking for in an easy
to trailer boat, I just don't think it is possible. If you figure it
out, let me know!
>
> John T

John,

The one word that I did not use was easy. It is possible, but it
isn't something that you're going to move on and off a trailer just
for a weekend.

Next time you're out on the road take a look at a semi tractor-trailer
combination. Particularly with a 53' trailer and a cab over tractor.

Envision if you will the cubic area that the trailer - and its 24"
tires encompass. That's 53' long by 102" wide by 13'6" tall - that's
~6081 cubic feet that you have to put a boat in. What that really
means is that in order for someone to legally haul any load over the
interstate highway system it has to be within those dimensions.

The various states can and do regulate trailer width and overall
length on their state highways. Mostly they allow this federal size
without hassle - some states require a permit for certain areas.

Regardless, all my research suggests that one can haul a boat from A
to B without any trouble if it's within these dimensions.

But I've also found that an 8' 6" wide boat just isn't very easy to
design an interior for. In order to get the amenities in that I
listed it's starting to stretch out to 42-43 feet long. Too long IMO.

But when one increases the beam of the boat to 10' 6" the overall
length can come back to the 36'-38' range and still get in the
amenities I mentioned.

What's that do for trailering? Well, you'll have to have an
over-width permit for every state you go through. But I have not yet
found a state I'd travel through that requires a pilot car for a 10'6"
load - just a sign saying overwidth and some special lights and travel
during the day and stay out of some cities. But all in all still doable.

Since moving to Texas I have come to despise the hot and humid
summers. But I adore the mild winters. When it's blowing and snowing
where I used to live in Washington, I had the office window and the
back door open all day for 4 days around New Years. Mid 60's a night
and high 70's in the day time. Plus we're getting about 1 hour and 45
minutes more daylight here than we were in Washington.

So let's suppose that after I retire and the wife is still teaching
that we have our winter home here in Texas and we travel north from
May until September. We miss 80% of the hot weather and 90% of the
nasty humidity.

After the wife retires we travel from April until November. As I
mentioned before maybe actually winter in the Bahamas. Or on a canal
in France.

How to get the boat between Texas and the summer's cruising grounds?
It >>MIGHT<< make sense to convert a used lowboy trailer to haul the
boat. If we're using a converted lowboy trailerI don't think it makes
too much ecomomic sense to own a specialty tractor just for hauling
the boat though. My spread sheets seem to suggest that hiring a
licensed overwidth tractor & driver to haul the boat either once or
twice a year make more sense.

OK, a different approach. Let's say the final design comes in under
15,000 pounds empty sitting on a trailer. There are lots of heavy
duty light trucks (pickups) or medium duty commercial trucks that have
that sort of towing capacity. And remember that we do not need the
trailer tires that a semi uses - we just don't have the weight that
they are needed for. So 6 much smaller tires are all that's needed
for that weight. Current prices - about \$150 each versus the several
hundred each for commercial tires. Plus add in a specially
constructed trailer (that I can weld up) and that >>MIGHT<< make
economic sense.

So trailering a <-40' x 10.5' boat is doable with some planning and
forethought.

But yes, a clinker built boat won't take the stresses. One can have a
boat that looks like a classic but is built using modern techniques
and materials and engineered to take advantage of the strength of
modern materials so that it will stand the rigors of trailering and
still be seaworthy.

The thing is that this just hasn't been done often. But the physical
aspects are not (IMO) the massive hurdles that lots of folks make them
out to be.

YMMV and all that.

Best,

Leo
• Leo--One of my fantasies is to retire and buy a 35 motorsailer (Fishers made in England). Spend the summers in New England/Nova Scotia. Head south as the
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
Leo--One of my fantasies is to retire and buy a 35 ' motorsailer (Fishers made in England). Spend the summers in New England/Nova Scotia. Head south as the leaves turn for the Gulf or Carribean. Head north as the dogwoods bloom. It will never happen (my wife is not enthusiastic and I've too many ties to the land), but it sure is fun to think about.

If you are going to tow with a Peterbuilt, there are lots more options!

John T
----- Original Message -----
From: Leo
To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 6:41 PM
Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: Easily driven boats

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "John B. Trussell"
<John.Trussell@w...> wrote:
[snip]
> As far as getting all the amenities you are looking for in an easy
to trailer boat, I just don't think it is possible. If you figure it
out, let me know!
>
> John T

John,

The one word that I did not use was easy. It is possible, but it
isn't something that you're going to move on and off a trailer just
for a weekend.

Next time you're out on the road take a look at a semi tractor-trailer
combination. Particularly with a 53' trailer and a cab over tractor.

Envision if you will the cubic area that the trailer - and its 24"
tires encompass. That's 53' long by 102" wide by 13'6" tall - that's
~6081 cubic feet that you have to put a boat in. What that really
means is that in order for someone to legally haul any load over the
interstate highway system it has to be within those dimensions.

The various states can and do regulate trailer width and overall
length on their state highways. Mostly they allow this federal size
without hassle - some states require a permit for certain areas.

Regardless, all my research suggests that one can haul a boat from A
to B without any trouble if it's within these dimensions.

But I've also found that an 8' 6" wide boat just isn't very easy to
design an interior for. In order to get the amenities in that I
listed it's starting to stretch out to 42-43 feet long. Too long IMO.

But when one increases the beam of the boat to 10' 6" the overall
length can come back to the 36'-38' range and still get in the
amenities I mentioned.

What's that do for trailering? Well, you'll have to have an
over-width permit for every state you go through. But I have not yet
found a state I'd travel through that requires a pilot car for a 10'6"
load - just a sign saying overwidth and some special lights and travel
during the day and stay out of some cities. But all in all still doable.

Since moving to Texas I have come to despise the hot and humid
summers. But I adore the mild winters. When it's blowing and snowing
where I used to live in Washington, I had the office window and the
back door open all day for 4 days around New Years. Mid 60's a night
and high 70's in the day time. Plus we're getting about 1 hour and 45
minutes more daylight here than we were in Washington.

So let's suppose that after I retire and the wife is still teaching
that we have our winter home here in Texas and we travel north from
May until September. We miss 80% of the hot weather and 90% of the
nasty humidity.

After the wife retires we travel from April until November. As I
mentioned before maybe actually winter in the Bahamas. Or on a canal
in France.

How to get the boat between Texas and the summer's cruising grounds?
It >>MIGHT<< make sense to convert a used lowboy trailer to haul the
boat. If we're using a converted lowboy trailerI don't think it makes
too much ecomomic sense to own a specialty tractor just for hauling
the boat though. My spread sheets seem to suggest that hiring a
licensed overwidth tractor & driver to haul the boat either once or
twice a year make more sense.

OK, a different approach. Let's say the final design comes in under
15,000 pounds empty sitting on a trailer. There are lots of heavy
duty light trucks (pickups) or medium duty commercial trucks that have
that sort of towing capacity. And remember that we do not need the
trailer tires that a semi uses - we just don't have the weight that
they are needed for. So 6 much smaller tires are all that's needed
for that weight. Current prices - about \$150 each versus the several
hundred each for commercial tires. Plus add in a specially
constructed trailer (that I can weld up) and that >>MIGHT<< make
economic sense.

So trailering a <-40' x 10.5' boat is doable with some planning and
forethought.

But yes, a clinker built boat won't take the stresses. One can have a
boat that looks like a classic but is built using modern techniques
and materials and engineered to take advantage of the strength of
modern materials so that it will stand the rigors of trailering and
still be seaworthy.

The thing is that this just hasn't been done often. But the physical
aspects are not (IMO) the massive hurdles that lots of folks make them
out to be.

YMMV and all that.

Best,

Leo

No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be polite.

If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.

The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
<http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Leo, Wow, you certainly have stirred up some good responses on this thread and the previous! I too am looking for a cruising boat to build; but my cruising
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
View Source
Leo,

Wow, you certainly have stirred up some good responses on this thread
and the previous! I too am looking for a cruising boat to build; but
my cruising would be on a lake about 100 miles long by 40 miles wide
so the size requirements are different. However, the cost of diesel
fuel here in Nicaragua is high (not as high as Europe) and I am
looking for a very efficient hull in the 23-26 foot range. I would
like to use an agriculture air-cooled engine in the 6.6 to 13 HP range
with belt drive. I can buy a 6.6 for \$639 and an 11 HP was quoted at

I really like the idea of a motorsailer for the assist it can give as
well as dampening the motion in these sometimes (well lots of the
time) rough waters. Some of the local transportation pangas use a 9.9
to 15 HP outboard and a sail. So, today the check was put in the mail
for study plans of "Little Water", "Little Silver" and "Lady of the
Lake". Okay, I know a stern-wheeler is not efficient, but "Lady of the
Lake" is for another project!

Mr. Robb White suggested "Little Water" but it is a fishing boat and
the cabin is minimal. Still, it looks attractive even though I don't
need the extreme shoal draft. (One inch draft per foot of deck length
would be fine.) "Little Silver" is a V-bottom motor-sailor with a nice
cabin. I wish I could remember the design where the Atkins compared
the SeaBright Skiff based designs with V-bottom designs. For our lake
conditions, the V-bottom may be the way to go.

Oh, some more design considerations! Exterior plywood is almost
quarter-sawn! There is a good wood here for steam bending (locals soak
it in water) but I haven't priced it yet. And I won't be building
alone. Our young carpenter working on things for the house is an
artist with wood and his rates are affordable!

I love this group!

Lewis

p.s. And I haven't entirely excluded Russell R. as a cheap option!

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
>
> Back when internal combustion engines were first becoming available 
> whether gas or diesel  these engines were massive chunks of cast
> iron and had very low HP to weight ratios. Maybe on the order of 1HP
> per 100 pounds. Today's engines might have 10-20 HP output per 100
> pounds of weight. Refer back to the comments about Rescue Minor and
> how the bow acts without the motor weight that Atkin specified for an
> example.
>
> So back when Atkin was designing, motors were very underpowered and
> the hull really needed to be "slippery" to fully take advantage of
> the low power that was available in those days from IC engines. And
> yes, I know I'm sorta downplaying, for now, the effect that torque
> has on turning a large propeller slowly.
>
> Based on my reading, early displacement power boat hulls evolved from
> sailboat hulls that were "sorta" efficient. Obviously the science of
> designing efficient displacement power boat hulls progressed rapidly 
> as NA's learned what worked best and what was less desirable.
>
> It seems to me that as engines become both more powerful and the
> power to weight ratio improved, that the hull shapes started moving
> away from what slipped through the water easiest and began evolving
> into the "fat-ish" hulls of trawlers and cargo boats and that
> evolution has progressed into the modern plastic floating apartments
> that grace (or is that disgrace?) trade magazines and marina's the
> world over.
>
> Having recently read a history of the Whitehall Rowing boat, I began
> to wonder why this hull form, with its fine entry, generous mid-
> section and wineglass stern wasn't expanded upon for inboard power.
> What's the drawback from scaling this general design up to make it a
> 30-40 footer? Perhaps direct 1:1 scaling isn't practical, but why
> couldn't one incorporate the fine entry, general midships section and
> the fine stern sections into a power boat hull? To my very untrained
> eye, it appears that Atkin did use some of these three design
> principles in several of his designs.
>
> IIRC, from Gerr's books and others, a large diameter, aggressively
> pitched slow turning propeller is more efficient for moving a
> displacement hull than a smaller less pitched propeller turning at
> higher speeds. Or is my memory getting as gray as my hair?
>
> It seems to be a difficult task in today's world to find folks that
> agree with this philosophy. Almost all modern (inboard diesel) boat
> propulsion systems rely on high speed engines  many with
> turbochargers  to turn a smaller wheel. Gear ratio's in the 2:1 
> 2.5:1 are common. This translates into prop RPM's from the low range
> of 750 RPM to a high of 1800 RPM when the 2:1 geared engine is wound
> to 3600 RPM.
>
> Yet just a few decades ago we had engines that idled at 300-400 RPM
> (or less) and had an operating RPM range from 700 to 1200. These
> engines ran for literally tens of thousands of hours nearly trouble
> free. Nowadays we often hear of inboard diesels needing replacement
> in as little as 2000 operating hours. Throwaway power. Yuck!
>
> I believe that we can generally agree that 1) how/where you want to
> go with a boat, 2) how long you want to stay aboard and 3) how
> much `camping' you're willing to tolerate determines what type, size
> and amenities we'll need. And finally, 4) aesthetics. How a boat
> looks to our eye is vital. And as each of us has different needs and
> tastes, I believe all 4 of these considerations are classic cases
> where Your Mileage May Vary. ;-)
>
> Addressing #1. My wife is a teacher and a decade younger  I want to
> be able to put the boat on a trailer and go for her summer vacation
> to Alaska via the inside passage this summer, The Erie Canal next 
> Maine and Nova Scotia another  Trent-Severn waterway another. When
> we're both retired then on to the Bahamas for the winter and back to
> Alaska for an extended trip. Maybe put it aboard a freighter and
> ship it to France for a couple of years living on the European canal
> system.
>
> Addressing #2. At first we're only talking about 10-12 weeks at a
> stretch. Later it could be full time for a few years  or at least 8-
> 9 months out of 12.
>
> Addressing #3. At first  we can tolerate a bit more `roughing it'
> for a few weeks, but some of the things that we will not do without 
> (not an all inclusive list) 1) space to get away from each other when
> need to. 2) a great galley with room enough to prepare a full meal
> without contortions of the body or with the pots and pans. 3) full
> length and width berth(s) with comfy mattresses. 4) a separate full
> sized shower  no sopping TP! 5) an all weather pilot station 
> either fully enclosed or enclosable with canvas.
>
> Addressing #4. I just plain like boats that look like a classic
> boat. None of this plastic fantastic modern European shapes for me.
> Give me the lines of an Elco or a Lake Union Dream Boat or a double
> ended Salmon Troller or the shape of a Whitehall. Give me a nice
> sheer and a plumb bow. How about bronze ports  either oval or
> round  and a rearward sloping windshield instead of that forward
> sloping monstrosity, regardless of how practical it is. Bottom
> line? Spare me the angular constructs that adorn so many marina's
> and boat shows.
>
> Finally, I think we can all agree that petroleum products  oil, gas,
> natural gas and diesel fuel  are just going to get more and more
> expensive. The days of a buck a gallon diesel are probably long
> gone. So this means that to have a boat that I can afford to
> operate, it must be very efficient. I'd consider 7-10 statute MPG
> the minimum  this should equate to less than 1 gallon per hour of
> running, in other words, 6-8 knots cruising speed at less than 1
> GPH. Better than that is just that, better. I think that this is
> achievable in a 35'-ish boat if we don't load it down with a ton of
> canned goods. Something less than 20,000 pounds  15,0000 better
> yet - fully ready to cruise would be the goal. My preliminary
> investigations and calculations indicate that given the right hull
> design and using modern epoxy/ply building methods this appears to be
> an achievable goal.
>
> Finally, utilize a big ol' slow turning engine with either a VPP or a
> big-ish wheel and set it up to cruise at a V/L of about 1 to 1.15 at
> the most efficient fuel consumption RPM for the engine  probably
> less than 1500 RPM - and one should have a boat that one could afford
> to build and run without breaking the 401k and would be worthy of
> being called a Retirement Cruiser.
>
>
> perfect boat for cruising the ICW and the various canals, waterways
> and rivers. But would this design be suitable for an Alaska trip or
> a trip to the Bahamas or a summer on the Great Lakes or the coast of
> Maine and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Perhaps not. So I still
> think to go to all the various places that I'd like to visit before I
> die, I need a boat with some sort of keel and the ability to take
> some rough weather should the unfortunate happen.
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> Best,
>
> Leo
• I am learning a lot as we go through this thread, and hope to learn more. I would like to put in a good word for the scow style hull typified by Sandpiper.
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
View Source
I am learning a lot as we go through this thread, and hope to learn more. I
would like to put in a good word for the scow style hull typified by
Sandpiper. If you think about what canal living is like, and look into what
those European canal boats had to do to make a living, they frequently went
"outside" and survived the experience. Certainly the British Thames barges
could stand a blow when they needed to. The other great plus is the
stability of a scow hull. A narrow scow hull will still have great initial
stability, which is very desirable in a live-aboard boat.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lewis E. Gordon [mailto:l_gordon_nica@...]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 10:15 PM
To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: Easily driven boats (and study plans ordered)

Leo,

Wow, you certainly have stirred up some good responses on this thread
and the previous! I too am looking for a cruising boat to build; but
my cruising would be on a lake about 100 miles long by 40 miles wide
so the size requirements are different. However, the cost of diesel
fuel here in Nicaragua is high (not as high as Europe) and I am
looking for a very efficient hull in the 23-26 foot range. I would
like to use an agriculture air-cooled engine in the 6.6 to 13 HP range
with belt drive. I can buy a 6.6 for \$639 and an 11 HP was quoted at

I really like the idea of a motorsailer for the assist it can give as
well as dampening the motion in these sometimes (well lots of the
time) rough waters. Some of the local transportation pangas use a 9.9
to 15 HP outboard and a sail. So, today the check was put in the mail
for study plans of "Little Water", "Little Silver" and "Lady of the
Lake". Okay, I know a stern-wheeler is not efficient, but "Lady of the
Lake" is for another project!

Mr. Robb White suggested "Little Water" but it is a fishing boat and
the cabin is minimal. Still, it looks attractive even though I don't
need the extreme shoal draft. (One inch draft per foot of deck length
would be fine.) "Little Silver" is a V-bottom motor-sailor with a nice
cabin. I wish I could remember the design where the Atkins compared
the SeaBright Skiff based designs with V-bottom designs. For our lake
conditions, the V-bottom may be the way to go.

Oh, some more design considerations! Exterior plywood is almost
quarter-sawn! There is a good wood here for steam bending (locals soak
it in water) but I haven't priced it yet. And I won't be building
alone. Our young carpenter working on things for the house is an
artist with wood and his rates are affordable!

I love this group!

Lewis

p.s. And I haven't entirely excluded Russell R. as a cheap option!

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
>
> Back when internal combustion engines were first becoming available 
> whether gas or diesel  these engines were massive chunks of cast
> iron and had very low HP to weight ratios. Maybe on the order of 1HP
> per 100 pounds. Today's engines might have 10-20 HP output per 100
> pounds of weight. Refer back to the comments about Rescue Minor and
> how the bow acts without the motor weight that Atkin specified for an
> example.
>
> So back when Atkin was designing, motors were very underpowered and
> the hull really needed to be "slippery" to fully take advantage of
> the low power that was available in those days from IC engines. And
> yes, I know I'm sorta downplaying, for now, the effect that torque
> has on turning a large propeller slowly.
>
> Based on my reading, early displacement power boat hulls evolved from
> sailboat hulls that were "sorta" efficient. Obviously the science of
> designing efficient displacement power boat hulls progressed rapidly 
> as NA's learned what worked best and what was less desirable.
>
> It seems to me that as engines become both more powerful and the
> power to weight ratio improved, that the hull shapes started moving
> away from what slipped through the water easiest and began evolving
> into the "fat-ish" hulls of trawlers and cargo boats and that
> evolution has progressed into the modern plastic floating apartments
> that grace (or is that disgrace?) trade magazines and marina's the
> world over.
>
> Having recently read a history of the Whitehall Rowing boat, I began
> to wonder why this hull form, with its fine entry, generous mid-
> section and wineglass stern wasn't expanded upon for inboard power.
> What's the drawback from scaling this general design up to make it a
> 30-40 footer? Perhaps direct 1:1 scaling isn't practical, but why
> couldn't one incorporate the fine entry, general midships section and
> the fine stern sections into a power boat hull? To my very untrained
> eye, it appears that Atkin did use some of these three design
> principles in several of his designs.
>
> IIRC, from Gerr's books and others, a large diameter, aggressively
> pitched slow turning propeller is more efficient for moving a
> displacement hull than a smaller less pitched propeller turning at
> higher speeds. Or is my memory getting as gray as my hair?
>
> It seems to be a difficult task in today's world to find folks that
> agree with this philosophy. Almost all modern (inboard diesel) boat
> propulsion systems rely on high speed engines  many with
> turbochargers  to turn a smaller wheel. Gear ratio's in the 2:1 
> 2.5:1 are common. This translates into prop RPM's from the low range
> of 750 RPM to a high of 1800 RPM when the 2:1 geared engine is wound
> to 3600 RPM.
>
> Yet just a few decades ago we had engines that idled at 300-400 RPM
> (or less) and had an operating RPM range from 700 to 1200. These
> engines ran for literally tens of thousands of hours nearly trouble
> free. Nowadays we often hear of inboard diesels needing replacement
> in as little as 2000 operating hours. Throwaway power. Yuck!
>
> I believe that we can generally agree that 1) how/where you want to
> go with a boat, 2) how long you want to stay aboard and 3) how
> much `camping' you're willing to tolerate determines what type, size
> and amenities we'll need. And finally, 4) aesthetics. How a boat
> looks to our eye is vital. And as each of us has different needs and
> tastes, I believe all 4 of these considerations are classic cases
> where Your Mileage May Vary. ;-)
>
> Addressing #1. My wife is a teacher and a decade younger  I want to
> be able to put the boat on a trailer and go for her summer vacation
> to Alaska via the inside passage this summer, The Erie Canal next 
> Maine and Nova Scotia another  Trent-Severn waterway another. When
> we're both retired then on to the Bahamas for the winter and back to
> Alaska for an extended trip. Maybe put it aboard a freighter and
> ship it to France for a couple of years living on the European canal
> system.
>
> Addressing #2. At first we're only talking about 10-12 weeks at a
> stretch. Later it could be full time for a few years  or at least 8-
> 9 months out of 12.
>
> Addressing #3. At first  we can tolerate a bit more `roughing it'
> for a few weeks, but some of the things that we will not do without 
> (not an all inclusive list) 1) space to get away from each other when
> need to. 2) a great galley with room enough to prepare a full meal
> without contortions of the body or with the pots and pans. 3) full
> length and width berth(s) with comfy mattresses. 4) a separate full
> sized shower  no sopping TP! 5) an all weather pilot station 
> either fully enclosed or enclosable with canvas.
>
> Addressing #4. I just plain like boats that look like a classic
> boat. None of this plastic fantastic modern European shapes for me.
> Give me the lines of an Elco or a Lake Union Dream Boat or a double
> ended Salmon Troller or the shape of a Whitehall. Give me a nice
> sheer and a plumb bow. How about bronze ports  either oval or
> round  and a rearward sloping windshield instead of that forward
> sloping monstrosity, regardless of how practical it is. Bottom
> line? Spare me the angular constructs that adorn so many marina's
> and boat shows.
>
> Finally, I think we can all agree that petroleum products  oil, gas,
> natural gas and diesel fuel  are just going to get more and more
> expensive. The days of a buck a gallon diesel are probably long
> gone. So this means that to have a boat that I can afford to
> operate, it must be very efficient. I'd consider 7-10 statute MPG
> the minimum  this should equate to less than 1 gallon per hour of
> running, in other words, 6-8 knots cruising speed at less than 1
> GPH. Better than that is just that, better. I think that this is
> achievable in a 35'-ish boat if we don't load it down with a ton of
> canned goods. Something less than 20,000 pounds  15,0000 better
> yet - fully ready to cruise would be the goal. My preliminary
> investigations and calculations indicate that given the right hull
> design and using modern epoxy/ply building methods this appears to be
> an achievable goal.
>
> Finally, utilize a big ol' slow turning engine with either a VPP or a
> big-ish wheel and set it up to cruise at a V/L of about 1 to 1.15 at
> the most efficient fuel consumption RPM for the engine  probably
> less than 1500 RPM - and one should have a boat that one could afford
> to build and run without breaking the 401k and would be worthy of
> being called a Retirement Cruiser.
>
>
> perfect boat for cruising the ICW and the various canals, waterways
> and rivers. But would this design be suitable for an Alaska trip or
> a trip to the Bahamas or a summer on the Great Lakes or the coast of
> Maine and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Perhaps not. So I still
> think to go to all the various places that I'd like to visit before I
> die, I need a boat with some sort of keel and the ability to take
> some rough weather should the unfortunate happen.
>
> Any other suggestions?
>
> Best,
>
> Leo

No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be
polite.

If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If
you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will
take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.

The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
<http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

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

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Hi Lewis, I think you made some good choices in study plans. You will have some nice options and hopefully a lot of insight into the actual construction of
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
View Source
Hi Lewis,

I think you made some good choices in study plans. You will have
some nice options and hopefully a lot of insight into the actual
construction of the tunneldrive "ala Atkins". If if the plans are
very instructive let us know; I'd gladly pay \$10.00 to see how it's
done.

One caution: make sure your belt drive incorporates a thrust bearing
to absorb the push of the propeller and impart it to the hull
structure.

John Dolph

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Lewis E. Gordon"
<l_gordon_nica@y...> wrote:
>
> Leo,
>
> Wow, you certainly have stirred up some good responses on this
> and the previous! I too am looking for a cruising boat to build; but
> my cruising would be on a lake about 100 miles long by 40 miles wide
> so the size requirements are different. However, the cost of diesel
> fuel here in Nicaragua is high (not as high as Europe) and I am
> looking for a very efficient hull in the 23-26 foot range. I would
> like to use an agriculture air-cooled engine in the 6.6 to 13 HP
range
> with belt drive. I can buy a 6.6 for \$639 and an 11 HP was quoted at
>
> I really like the idea of a motorsailer for the assist it can give
as
> well as dampening the motion in these sometimes (well lots of the
> time) rough waters. Some of the local transportation pangas use a
9.9
> to 15 HP outboard and a sail. So, today the check was put in the
mail
> for study plans of "Little Water", "Little Silver" and "Lady of the
> Lake". Okay, I know a stern-wheeler is not efficient, but "Lady of
the
> Lake" is for another project!
>
> Mr. Robb White suggested "Little Water" but it is a fishing boat and
> the cabin is minimal. Still, it looks attractive even though I don't
> need the extreme shoal draft. (One inch draft per foot of deck
length
> would be fine.) "Little Silver" is a V-bottom motor-sailor with a
nice
> cabin. I wish I could remember the design where the Atkins compared
> the SeaBright Skiff based designs with V-bottom designs. For our
lake
> conditions, the V-bottom may be the way to go.
>
> Oh, some more design considerations! Exterior plywood is almost
> woods are available but not cheap; and forget about asking for
> quarter-sawn! There is a good wood here for steam bending (locals
soak
> it in water) but I haven't priced it yet. And I won't be building
> alone. Our young carpenter working on things for the house is an
> artist with wood and his rates are affordable!
>
> I love this group!
>
> Lewis
>
> p.s. And I haven't entirely excluded Russell R. as a cheap option!
>
>
> --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Back when internal combustion engines were first becoming
available 
> > whether gas or diesel  these engines were massive chunks of cast
> > iron and had very low HP to weight ratios. Maybe on the order of
1HP
> > per 100 pounds. Today's engines might have 10-20 HP output per
100
> > pounds of weight. Refer back to the comments about Rescue Minor
and
> > how the bow acts without the motor weight that Atkin specified
for an
> > example.
> >
> > So back when Atkin was designing, motors were very underpowered
and
> > the hull really needed to be "slippery" to fully take advantage
of
> > the low power that was available in those days from IC engines.
And
> > yes, I know I'm sorta downplaying, for now, the effect that
torque
> > has on turning a large propeller slowly.
> >
> > Based on my reading, early displacement power boat hulls evolved
from
> > sailboat hulls that were "sorta" efficient. Obviously the
science of
> > designing efficient displacement power boat hulls progressed
rapidly 
> > as NA's learned what worked best and what was less desirable.
> >
> > It seems to me that as engines become both more powerful and the
> > power to weight ratio improved, that the hull shapes started
moving
> > away from what slipped through the water easiest and began
evolving
> > into the "fat-ish" hulls of trawlers and cargo boats and that
> > evolution has progressed into the modern plastic floating
apartments
> > that grace (or is that disgrace?) trade magazines and marina's
the
> > world over.
> >
> > Having recently read a history of the Whitehall Rowing boat, I
began
> > to wonder why this hull form, with its fine entry, generous mid-
> > section and wineglass stern wasn't expanded upon for inboard
power.
> > What's the drawback from scaling this general design up to make
it a
> > 30-40 footer? Perhaps direct 1:1 scaling isn't practical, but
why
> > couldn't one incorporate the fine entry, general midships section
and
> > the fine stern sections into a power boat hull? To my very
untrained
> > eye, it appears that Atkin did use some of these three design
> > principles in several of his designs.
> >
> > IIRC, from Gerr's books and others, a large diameter,
aggressively
> > pitched slow turning propeller is more efficient for moving a
> > displacement hull than a smaller less pitched propeller turning
at
> > higher speeds. Or is my memory getting as gray as my hair?
> >
> > It seems to be a difficult task in today's world to find folks
that
> > agree with this philosophy. Almost all modern (inboard diesel)
boat
> > propulsion systems rely on high speed engines  many with
> > turbochargers  to turn a smaller wheel. Gear ratio's in the
2:1 
> > 2.5:1 are common. This translates into prop RPM's from the low
range
> > of 750 RPM to a high of 1800 RPM when the 2:1 geared engine is
wound
> > to 3600 RPM.
> >
> > Yet just a few decades ago we had engines that idled at 300-400
RPM
> > (or less) and had an operating RPM range from 700 to 1200. These
> > engines ran for literally tens of thousands of hours nearly
trouble
> > free. Nowadays we often hear of inboard diesels needing
replacement
> > in as little as 2000 operating hours. Throwaway power. Yuck!
> >
> > I believe that we can generally agree that 1) how/where you want
to
> > go with a boat, 2) how long you want to stay aboard and 3) how
> > much `camping' you're willing to tolerate determines what type,
size
> > and amenities we'll need. And finally, 4) aesthetics. How a
boat
> > looks to our eye is vital. And as each of us has different needs
and
> > tastes, I believe all 4 of these considerations are classic cases
> > where Your Mileage May Vary. ;-)
> >
> > Addressing #1. My wife is a teacher and a decade younger  I
want to
> > be able to put the boat on a trailer and go for her summer
vacation
> > to Alaska via the inside passage this summer, The Erie Canal
next 
> > Maine and Nova Scotia another  Trent-Severn waterway another.
When
> > we're both retired then on to the Bahamas for the winter and back
to
> > Alaska for an extended trip. Maybe put it aboard a freighter and
> > ship it to France for a couple of years living on the European
canal
> > system.
> >
> > Addressing #2. At first we're only talking about 10-12 weeks at
a
> > stretch. Later it could be full time for a few years  or at
least 8-
> > 9 months out of 12.
> >
> > Addressing #3. At first  we can tolerate a bit more `roughing
it'
> > for a few weeks, but some of the things that we will not do
without 
> > (not an all inclusive list) 1) space to get away from each other
when
> > need to. 2) a great galley with room enough to prepare a full
meal
> > without contortions of the body or with the pots and pans. 3)
full
> > length and width berth(s) with comfy mattresses. 4) a separate
full
> > sized shower  no sopping TP! 5) an all weather pilot station 
> > either fully enclosed or enclosable with canvas.
> >
> > Addressing #4. I just plain like boats that look like a classic
> > boat. None of this plastic fantastic modern European shapes for
me.
> > Give me the lines of an Elco or a Lake Union Dream Boat or a
double
> > ended Salmon Troller or the shape of a Whitehall. Give me a nice
> > sheer and a plumb bow. How about bronze ports  either oval or
> > round  and a rearward sloping windshield instead of that forward
> > sloping monstrosity, regardless of how practical it is. Bottom
> > line? Spare me the angular constructs that adorn so many
marina's
> > and boat shows.
> >
> > Finally, I think we can all agree that petroleum products  oil,
gas,
> > natural gas and diesel fuel  are just going to get more and more
> > expensive. The days of a buck a gallon diesel are probably long
> > gone. So this means that to have a boat that I can afford to
> > operate, it must be very efficient. I'd consider 7-10 statute
MPG
> > the minimum  this should equate to less than 1 gallon per hour
of
> > running, in other words, 6-8 knots cruising speed at less than 1
> > GPH. Better than that is just that, better. I think that this
is
> > achievable in a 35'-ish boat if we don't load it down with a ton
of
> > canned goods. Something less than 20,000 pounds  15,0000 better
> > yet - fully ready to cruise would be the goal. My preliminary
> > investigations and calculations indicate that given the right
hull
> > design and using modern epoxy/ply building methods this appears
to be
> > an achievable goal.
> >
> > Finally, utilize a big ol' slow turning engine with either a VPP
or a
> > big-ish wheel and set it up to cruise at a V/L of about 1 to 1.15
at
> > the most efficient fuel consumption RPM for the engine  probably
> > less than 1500 RPM - and one should have a boat that one could
afford
> > to build and run without breaking the 401k and would be worthy of
> > being called a Retirement Cruiser.
> >
> >
> > perfect boat for cruising the ICW and the various canals,
waterways
> > and rivers. But would this design be suitable for an Alaska trip
or
> > a trip to the Bahamas or a summer on the Great Lakes or the coast
of
> > Maine and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Perhaps not. So I still
> > think to go to all the various places that I'd like to visit
before I
> > die, I need a boat with some sort of keel and the ability to take
> > some rough weather should the unfortunate happen.
> >
> > Any other suggestions?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Leo
• I just posted drawings of Martha Green in the files section under motroboat drawings. Martha Green is a wonderful little Motor Sailor only 24 long by 8 4 But
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
View Source
I just posted drawings of Martha Green in the files section under
motroboat drawings. Martha Green is a wonderful little Motor Sailor
only 24'long by 8'4" But she has full standing headroom (5'11")for
most people this is enough.

I did'nt realize she was a motorsailor untill I recieved the Plans.
The Atkins boat site is really great but info on most of the boats is
a little sparse which leads to wonderful discoveries like the fact
that Martha Green is a Motorsailor.

The plans call for a Atomic Four engine which puts out about 10 hp.
and I've found a place where you can get a rebuilt one for under \$5000
So this boat can be built to Atkins specs and would perform as the
designer created her to.

http://www3.telus.net/Atomic_4_Eng_Service/Price_Lists.html

The link above is the site from which you can get the Atomic Four as
well as many other fully rebuilt old motors.

Jim F
--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Lewis E. Gordon"
<l_gordon_nica@y...> wrote:
>
> Leo,
>
> Wow, you certainly have stirred up some good responses on this thread
> and the previous! I too am looking for a cruising boat to build; but
> my cruising would be on a lake about 100 miles long by 40 miles wide
> so the size requirements are different. However, the cost of diesel
> fuel here in Nicaragua is high (not as high as Europe) and I am
> looking for a very efficient hull in the 23-26 foot range. I would
> like to use an agriculture air-cooled engine in the 6.6 to 13 HP range
> with belt drive. I can buy a 6.6 for \$639 and an 11 HP was quoted at
>
> I really like the idea of a motorsailer for the assist it can give as
> well as dampening the motion in these sometimes (well lots of the
> time) rough waters. Some of the local transportation pangas use a 9.9
> to 15 HP outboard and a sail. So, today the check was put in the mail
> for study plans of "Little Water", "Little Silver" and "Lady of the
> Lake". Okay, I know a stern-wheeler is not efficient, but "Lady of the
> Lake" is for another project!
>
> Mr. Robb White suggested "Little Water" but it is a fishing boat and
> the cabin is minimal. Still, it looks attractive even though I don't
> need the extreme shoal draft. (One inch draft per foot of deck length
> would be fine.) "Little Silver" is a V-bottom motor-sailor with a nice
> cabin. I wish I could remember the design where the Atkins compared
> the SeaBright Skiff based designs with V-bottom designs. For our lake
> conditions, the V-bottom may be the way to go.
>
> Oh, some more design considerations! Exterior plywood is almost
> woods are available but not cheap; and forget about asking for
> quarter-sawn! There is a good wood here for steam bending (locals soak
> it in water) but I haven't priced it yet. And I won't be building
> alone. Our young carpenter working on things for the house is an
> artist with wood and his rates are affordable!
>
> I love this group!
>
> Lewis
>
> p.s. And I haven't entirely excluded Russell R. as a cheap option!
>
>
> --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" <leochill@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Back when internal combustion engines were first becoming available 
> > whether gas or diesel  these engines were massive chunks of cast
> > iron and had very low HP to weight ratios. Maybe on the order of 1HP
> > per 100 pounds. Today's engines might have 10-20 HP output per 100
> > pounds of weight. Refer back to the comments about Rescue Minor and
> > how the bow acts without the motor weight that Atkin specified for an
> > example.
> >
> > So back when Atkin was designing, motors were very underpowered and
> > the hull really needed to be "slippery" to fully take advantage of
> > the low power that was available in those days from IC engines. And
> > yes, I know I'm sorta downplaying, for now, the effect that torque
> > has on turning a large propeller slowly.
> >
> > Based on my reading, early displacement power boat hulls evolved from
> > sailboat hulls that were "sorta" efficient. Obviously the science of
> > designing efficient displacement power boat hulls progressed rapidly 
> > as NA's learned what worked best and what was less desirable.
> >
> > It seems to me that as engines become both more powerful and the
> > power to weight ratio improved, that the hull shapes started moving
> > away from what slipped through the water easiest and began evolving
> > into the "fat-ish" hulls of trawlers and cargo boats and that
> > evolution has progressed into the modern plastic floating apartments
> > that grace (or is that disgrace?) trade magazines and marina's the
> > world over.
> >
> > Having recently read a history of the Whitehall Rowing boat, I began
> > to wonder why this hull form, with its fine entry, generous mid-
> > section and wineglass stern wasn't expanded upon for inboard power.
> > What's the drawback from scaling this general design up to make it a
> > 30-40 footer? Perhaps direct 1:1 scaling isn't practical, but why
> > couldn't one incorporate the fine entry, general midships section and
> > the fine stern sections into a power boat hull? To my very untrained
> > eye, it appears that Atkin did use some of these three design
> > principles in several of his designs.
> >
> > IIRC, from Gerr's books and others, a large diameter, aggressively
> > pitched slow turning propeller is more efficient for moving a
> > displacement hull than a smaller less pitched propeller turning at
> > higher speeds. Or is my memory getting as gray as my hair?
> >
> > It seems to be a difficult task in today's world to find folks that
> > agree with this philosophy. Almost all modern (inboard diesel) boat
> > propulsion systems rely on high speed engines  many with
> > turbochargers  to turn a smaller wheel. Gear ratio's in the 2:1 
> > 2.5:1 are common. This translates into prop RPM's from the low range
> > of 750 RPM to a high of 1800 RPM when the 2:1 geared engine is wound
> > to 3600 RPM.
> >
> > Yet just a few decades ago we had engines that idled at 300-400 RPM
> > (or less) and had an operating RPM range from 700 to 1200. These
> > engines ran for literally tens of thousands of hours nearly trouble
> > free. Nowadays we often hear of inboard diesels needing replacement
> > in as little as 2000 operating hours. Throwaway power. Yuck!
> >
> > I believe that we can generally agree that 1) how/where you want to
> > go with a boat, 2) how long you want to stay aboard and 3) how
> > much `camping' you're willing to tolerate determines what type, size
> > and amenities we'll need. And finally, 4) aesthetics. How a boat
> > looks to our eye is vital. And as each of us has different needs and
> > tastes, I believe all 4 of these considerations are classic cases
> > where Your Mileage May Vary. ;-)
> >
> > Addressing #1. My wife is a teacher and a decade younger  I want to
> > be able to put the boat on a trailer and go for her summer vacation
> > to Alaska via the inside passage this summer, The Erie Canal next 
> > Maine and Nova Scotia another  Trent-Severn waterway another. When
> > we're both retired then on to the Bahamas for the winter and back to
> > Alaska for an extended trip. Maybe put it aboard a freighter and
> > ship it to France for a couple of years living on the European canal
> > system.
> >
> > Addressing #2. At first we're only talking about 10-12 weeks at a
> > stretch. Later it could be full time for a few years  or at least 8-
> > 9 months out of 12.
> >
> > Addressing #3. At first  we can tolerate a bit more `roughing it'
> > for a few weeks, but some of the things that we will not do without 
> > (not an all inclusive list) 1) space to get away from each other when
> > need to. 2) a great galley with room enough to prepare a full meal
> > without contortions of the body or with the pots and pans. 3) full
> > length and width berth(s) with comfy mattresses. 4) a separate full
> > sized shower  no sopping TP! 5) an all weather pilot station 
> > either fully enclosed or enclosable with canvas.
> >
> > Addressing #4. I just plain like boats that look like a classic
> > boat. None of this plastic fantastic modern European shapes for me.
> > Give me the lines of an Elco or a Lake Union Dream Boat or a double
> > ended Salmon Troller or the shape of a Whitehall. Give me a nice
> > sheer and a plumb bow. How about bronze ports  either oval or
> > round  and a rearward sloping windshield instead of that forward
> > sloping monstrosity, regardless of how practical it is. Bottom
> > line? Spare me the angular constructs that adorn so many marina's
> > and boat shows.
> >
> > Finally, I think we can all agree that petroleum products  oil, gas,
> > natural gas and diesel fuel  are just going to get more and more
> > expensive. The days of a buck a gallon diesel are probably long
> > gone. So this means that to have a boat that I can afford to
> > operate, it must be very efficient. I'd consider 7-10 statute MPG
> > the minimum  this should equate to less than 1 gallon per hour of
> > running, in other words, 6-8 knots cruising speed at less than 1
> > GPH. Better than that is just that, better. I think that this is
> > achievable in a 35'-ish boat if we don't load it down with a ton of
> > canned goods. Something less than 20,000 pounds  15,0000 better
> > yet - fully ready to cruise would be the goal. My preliminary
> > investigations and calculations indicate that given the right hull
> > design and using modern epoxy/ply building methods this appears to be
> > an achievable goal.
> >
> > Finally, utilize a big ol' slow turning engine with either a VPP or a
> > big-ish wheel and set it up to cruise at a V/L of about 1 to 1.15 at
> > the most efficient fuel consumption RPM for the engine  probably
> > less than 1500 RPM - and one should have a boat that one could afford
> > to build and run without breaking the 401k and would be worthy of
> > being called a Retirement Cruiser.
> >
> >
> > perfect boat for cruising the ICW and the various canals, waterways
> > and rivers. But would this design be suitable for an Alaska trip or
> > a trip to the Bahamas or a summer on the Great Lakes or the coast of
> > Maine and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? Perhaps not. So I still
> > think to go to all the various places that I'd like to visit before I
> > die, I need a boat with some sort of keel and the ability to take
> > some rough weather should the unfortunate happen.
> >
> > Any other suggestions?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Leo
• ... forums). As you seem to have access to tank testing facilities, I wonder if it would not be a worthwhile project to take the Sea Bright tunnel stern hulls
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
View Source
--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald Fossum" <artemis@p...>
wrote:
> Manfred:
>
> I have read your postings here (and, I think, in other boat design
forums). As you seem to have access to tank testing facilities, I
wonder if it would not be a worthwhile project to take the Sea Bright
tunnel stern hulls - which Atkin designed in many lengths - and model
them for tank testing (for the modern builder, probably the designs
which could be built of plywood would have the most interest). There
is a desire to have stable, shallow draft pleasure boats that will
cruise comfortably in the 15 - 18 mph range (ask any family which has
a 30+ mph plastic boat and you'll find - after they've owned it a
year or so - that comfortable, non-pounding would be welcomed, even
if at a decreased speed). I believe that the tests would show
remarkable efficiency, seakindliness and seaworthiness.
>
> I would think that there would be a large base for these designs in
Europe with it's many river, lakes, and canals - and with fuel costs
much higher there, an efficient hull using less power would seem a
potential "best seller". The Atkin tunnel stern Sea Brights are not
well known even in the USA, so probably not at all in Europe.
Hello Ron,
indeed, I would like to do this. But this is not possible for me.
First, the costs to run a water tank test series are very high and
I`m retired now with no personal access.
Second, there have been tests with similiar hulls since more than 20
years by Dr. Paul Mader ( "Maderform" hulls ). And these hulls have
been developed year by year and are patented now (think, I´m up to
date). They deliver hydrodynamic lift in the after third part of the
hull, a very smooth water behind and nearly no whorls ( vortices )
leave the hull. I have a DVD of the last tests in Berlin which shows
a very smooth waterflow of the hull and a very stable course.

Meanwhile there are some ships with these Maderform hulls on the
BODENSEE and other waterways in Germany, which have proven their
superiority over coventional designs. But as with all new
developments there are a lot of established people who deny the
merits of Maderform hulls although all tests and computersimulations
(Navier-Stokes) have shown their superiority.

Having the Maderform hulls in mind and looking at the study plans of
SAND PIPER one can find "some" similiar aspects. One might be the
negative deadrise at the stern. But there is more and this has to be
tested. I´ll try to get the plans of SAND PIPER ( with the help of
DUCKWORKS as they accept my Master Card ), build a down sized version
and test it here on the Baltic. In my cellar I try to twist sheets of
aircraft birch ply for a small model to gain an underwater shape like
SAND PIPER, to gain the same clever waterflow. But I`m not shure to
succeed. Regards, Manfred
• Thank you for your response, Manfred. I have heard of, and seen reference to, Maderform hulls - but did not understand the concept. Now I think it would be
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
View Source
Thank you for your response, Manfred.

I have heard of, and seen reference to, "Maderform" hulls - but did not understand the concept. Now I think it would be useful to know more. I used the Google search engine and looked for "Maderform hulls" (no results, do I want maidenform bras?) and Paul Mader (lots of stuff about a Paul Mader who is heavily involved in agriculture in 3rd world areas).

Do you know of any websites that discuss/have information on Maderform hulls?

Many thanks.

Ron Fossum

----- Original Message -----
From: liokai2002
To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:25 PM
Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: Most Efficient Hull??

Hello Ron,
indeed, I would like to do this. But this is not possible for me.
First, the costs to run a water tank test series are very high and
I`m retired now with no personal access.
Second, there have been tests with similiar hulls since more than 20
years by Dr. Paul Mader ( "Maderform" hulls ). And these hulls have
been developed year by year and are patented now (think, I´m up to
date). They deliver hydrodynamic lift in the after third part of the
hull, a very smooth water behind and nearly no whorls ( vortices )
leave the hull. I have a DVD of the last tests in Berlin which shows
a very smooth waterflow of the hull and a very stable course.

Meanwhile there are some ships with these Maderform hulls on the
BODENSEE and other waterways in Germany, which have proven their
superiority over coventional designs. But as with all new
developments there are a lot of established people who deny the
merits of Maderform hulls although all tests and computersimulations
(Navier-Stokes) have shown their superiority.

Having the Maderform hulls in mind and looking at the study plans of
SAND PIPER one can find "some" similiar aspects. One might be the
negative deadrise at the stern. But there is more and this has to be
tested. I´ll try to get the plans of SAND PIPER ( with the help of
DUCKWORKS as they accept my Master Card ), build a down sized version
and test it here on the Baltic. In my cellar I try to twist sheets of
aircraft birch ply for a small model to gain an underwater shape like
SAND PIPER, to gain the same clever waterflow. But I`m not shure to
succeed. Regards, Manfred

No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be polite.

If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.

The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
<http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Interesting pic. Those are pretty scant sails for a boat of that displacement but I noticed that Atkin drew in vangs p&s for the gaff peak. On a smaller boat
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
View Source
Interesting pic. Those are pretty scant sails for a boat of that
displacement but I noticed that Atkin drew in vangs p&s for the gaff
peak. On a smaller boat that would be scary but I'm sure they will cause
no big fear factor in a boat with the stability of Martha Green and would
surely help he point up as well as a marconi rig. Those Atkin guys were
geniouses as well as practical. No designers that I know of now are
designating vangs... insurance reasons? I sail a sixteen foot dingy
(sometimes) with a gaff rig and use them. Best sailing rig I know of, but
just a bit harry in a gust <g>. And I want to say that a gaff rig with
zero twist is a whole different animal!

David Lightfoot

At 08:21 AM 1/18/2005, you wrote:

>I just posted drawings of Martha Green in the files section under
>motroboat drawings. Martha Green is a wonderful little Motor Sailor
>only 24'long by 8'4" But she has full standing headroom (5'11")for
>most people this is enough.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005
• Hi Ron, think you will not find Maderform Hulls using Google. Dr. Mader is a shipwright and has a wharf called Hycom in Duisburg (Germany). Suppose there
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 19, 2005
View Source
Hi Ron, think you will not find "Maderform Hulls" using Google. Dr.
Mader is a shipwright and has a wharf called "Hycom" in Duisburg
(Germany). Suppose there are many Hycoms in the Google world. When
you send me your adress, I can post you some papers and pics, not
professionally, just from one interested "hydrodymaniac" to another.
Regards, Manfred

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald Fossum" <artemis@p...>
wrote:
> Thank you for your response, Manfred.
>
> I have heard of, and seen reference to, "Maderform" hulls - but did
not understand the concept. Now I think it would be useful to know
of stuff about a Paul Mader who is heavily involved in agriculture in
3rd world areas).
>
> Do you know of any websites that discuss/have information on
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Ron Fossum
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liokai2002
> To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:25 PM
> Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: Most Efficient Hull??
>
>
>
> Hello Ron,
> indeed, I would like to do this. But this is not possible for me.
> First, the costs to run a water tank test series are very high
and
> I`m retired now with no personal access.
> Second, there have been tests with similiar hulls since more than
20
> years by Dr. Paul Mader ( "Maderform" hulls ). And these hulls
have
> been developed year by year and are patented now (think, I´m up
to
> date). They deliver hydrodynamic lift in the after third part of
the
> hull, a very smooth water behind and nearly no whorls (
vortices )
> leave the hull. I have a DVD of the last tests in Berlin which
shows
> a very smooth waterflow of the hull and a very stable course.
>
> Meanwhile there are some ships with these Maderform hulls on the
> BODENSEE and other waterways in Germany, which have proven their
> superiority over coventional designs. But as with all new
> developments there are a lot of established people who deny the
> merits of Maderform hulls although all tests and
computersimulations
> (Navier-Stokes) have shown their superiority.
>
> Having the Maderform hulls in mind and looking at the study plans
of
> SAND PIPER one can find "some" similiar aspects. One might be the
> negative deadrise at the stern. But there is more and this has to
be
> tested. I´ll try to get the plans of SAND PIPER ( with the help
of
> DUCKWORKS as they accept my Master Card ), build a down sized
version
> and test it here on the Baltic. In my cellar I try to twist
sheets of
> aircraft birch ply for a small model to gain an underwater shape
like
> SAND PIPER, to gain the same clever waterflow. But I`m not shure
to
> succeed. Regards, Manfred
>
>
>
>
>
> No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please
be polite.
>
> If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the
plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and
Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the
resulting boat.
>
> The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
> <http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AtkinBoats/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AtkinBoats-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]
• Jim, I have drooled over the plans for Martha Green for years, but the 2 11 draft is just a bit more than practical for the local waters and the cruising I
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 19, 2005
View Source
Jim,

I have drooled over the plans for Martha Green for years, but the 2'
11" draft is just a bit more than practical for the local waters and
the cruising I plan on doing. Thanks for posting the drawings.

Another post mentions the many virtues of "Sand Piper". This should be
an efficient hull but the length and power requirements are both in
excess of my requirements. I do love the slender scows/garveys type
hulls. Hmmmmm!! From another thread, a 14% length reduction would put
"Sand Piper" down to 26 feet.

Lewis

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "j_freach" <j_freach@y...> wrote:
>
> I just posted drawings of Martha Green in the files section under
> motroboat drawings. Martha Green is a wonderful little Motor Sailor
> only 24'long by 8'4" But she has full standing headroom (5'11")for
> most people this is enough.
>
> I did'nt realize she was a motorsailor untill I recieved the Plans.
> The Atkins boat site is really great but info on most of the boats is
> a little sparse which leads to wonderful discoveries like the fact
> that Martha Green is a Motorsailor.
>
> The plans call for a Atomic Four engine which puts out about 10 hp.
> and I've found a place where you can get a rebuilt one for under \$5000
> So this boat can be built to Atkins specs and would perform as the
> designer created her to.
>
> http://www3.telus.net/Atomic_4_Eng_Service/Price_Lists.html
>
> The link above is the site from which you can get the Atomic Four as
> well as many other fully rebuilt old motors.
>
> Jim F
• Lewis, I don`t think that it is wise to alter a well tested design. You will not only have to change the distance between the bulkheads bei 14 % but all other
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 20, 2005
View Source
Lewis, I don`t think that it is wise to alter a well tested design.
You will not only have to change the distance between the bulkheads
bei 14 % but all other parameters ( some with x³) and lines or you
will ruin the calculated waterflow of Sandpiper. When you compare
Sand Piper with Huckleberry Finn ( 50 ft ), which has a similiar
shape, you will find out that there is not only an enlargement by a
certain amount of percentage. The whole shape is different. I´m not a
designer, but to me it seems difficult to alter the lengh of a design
with an underwater shape like the Piper.

But the shape of Sand Piper is so interesting for me that I would
choose another option. I would try to design my own boat. Compared to
the other Tunnel Designs Sand Piper does not seem to be very tricky.
After calculating the length and beam I would make a model and shape
the underwater part with two small sheets of birch craft ply by
twisting / torturing after fixing them at the point where they are
even before they have to be twisted in the other direction. This
seems to work - I`ve tried it, but not yet finished. The problem ist
the last 1/3 . When the model is ready, I`ll try it in the water
with a balance and another model (I have already some tested "normal
hulls"). The model should take some weight and when towed, it should
run as even as possible at all speeds( like Rescue Minor ) and it
should be able to run with minimum wake ( whorls, vortices, eddies).
This might be a long way but it is a real challenge and it offers the
possibility to understand the extraordinary designs of William Atkin
a little bit better. Regards, Manfred

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Lewis E. Gordon"
<l_gordon_nica@y...> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> I have drooled over the plans for Martha Green for years, but the 2'
> 11" draft is just a bit more than practical for the local waters and
> the cruising I plan on doing. Thanks for posting the drawings.
>
> Another post mentions the many virtues of "Sand Piper". This should
be
> an efficient hull but the length and power requirements are both in
> excess of my requirements. I do love the slender scows/garveys type
> hulls. Hmmmmm!! From another thread, a 14% length reduction would
put
> "Sand Piper" down to 26 feet.
>
> Lewis
>
>
> --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "j_freach" <j_freach@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I just posted drawings of Martha Green in the files section under
> > motroboat drawings. Martha Green is a wonderful little Motor
Sailor
> > only 24'long by 8'4" But she has full standing headroom (5'11")for
> > most people this is enough.
> >
> > I did'nt realize she was a motorsailor untill I recieved the
Plans.
> > The Atkins boat site is really great but info on most of the
boats is
> > a little sparse which leads to wonderful discoveries like the fact
> > that Martha Green is a Motorsailor.
> >
> > The plans call for a Atomic Four engine which puts out about 10
hp.
> > and I've found a place where you can get a rebuilt one for under
\$5000
> > So this boat can be built to Atkins specs and would perform as the
> > designer created her to.
> >
> > http://www3.telus.net/Atomic_4_Eng_Service/Price_Lists.html
> >
> > The link above is the site from which you can get the Atomic Four
as
> > well as many other fully rebuilt old motors.
> >
> > Jim F
• Thank you, Manfred, for your kind response. I would certainly appreciate any information you might have. My internet connection is DSL so large (up to 5Meg)
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 21, 2005
View Source
Thank you, Manfred, for your kind response. I would certainly appreciate any information you might have. My internet connection is DSL so large (up to 5Meg) file size is not an issue.

My intention is to build a turnnel stern Sea Bright Skiff of about 21' 6" LOA, 6' beam and (hopefully) 6" - 7" draft. It will be powered by a high speed steam plant - total weight of under 350 lbs. - with engine rpm max at 2000rpm / 15+ shaft HP.

I liked what Robb White did with his version of Rescue Minor, but I would retain the Atkin plywood construction for the area below the chines (making it of 1/2" marine plywood - 1" for the flat bottom/keel). I would develop the topsides as curved forms - much like the original Sea Bright Skiffs - and use glued plywood lapstrake planking - ala Ian Oughtred - probably of 3/8" marine plywood. If you're interested, I could scan some scaled sketches (once they're completed) and email them to you. I have a copy of "The Sea Bright Skiff and other shore boats" by Peter Guthorn as well as "Building Classic Small Craft & More Building Classic Small Craft" by John Gardner", so have researched the design fairly well. My local Public Library also has the Motor Boatings Ideal Series (complete) where the Atkins published all of their Sea Bright Designs (complete with offsets).

I plan to build a 3/4" = 1' model (as Weston Farmer recommends) to further refine the design. I then hope to start actual hull construction sometime this summer and, as I am now retired, have the hull completed before the rains set in here in Portland, Oregon (usually in late October). I have some background, professionally, in wooden boatwright work, mostly in repair and restoration. I still have a LOT of clamps, etc. to make the work go easier.

Ron Fossum, artemis@...

----- Original Message -----
From: liokai2002
To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 2:18 AM
Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: Most Efficient Hull??

Hi Ron, think you will not find "Maderform Hulls" using Google. Dr.
Mader is a shipwright and has a wharf called "Hycom" in Duisburg
(Germany). Suppose there are many Hycoms in the Google world. When
you send me your adress, I can post you some papers and pics, not
professionally, just from one interested "hydrodymaniac" to another.
Regards, Manfred

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald Fossum" <artemis@p...>
wrote:
> Thank you for your response, Manfred.
>
> I have heard of, and seen reference to, "Maderform" hulls - but did
not understand the concept. Now I think it would be useful to know
of stuff about a Paul Mader who is heavily involved in agriculture in
3rd world areas).
>
> Do you know of any websites that discuss/have information on
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Ron Fossum
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liokai2002
> To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:25 PM
> Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: Most Efficient Hull??
>
>
>
> Hello Ron,
> indeed, I would like to do this. But this is not possible for me.
> First, the costs to run a water tank test series are very high
and
> I`m retired now with no personal access.
> Second, there have been tests with similiar hulls since more than
20
> years by Dr. Paul Mader ( "Maderform" hulls ). And these hulls
have
> been developed year by year and are patented now (think, I´m up
to
> date). They deliver hydrodynamic lift in the after third part of
the
> hull, a very smooth water behind and nearly no whorls (
vortices )
> leave the hull. I have a DVD of the last tests in Berlin which
shows
> a very smooth waterflow of the hull and a very stable course.
>
> Meanwhile there are some ships with these Maderform hulls on the
> BODENSEE and other waterways in Germany, which have proven their
> superiority over coventional designs. But as with all new
> developments there are a lot of established people who deny the
> merits of Maderform hulls although all tests and
computersimulations
> (Navier-Stokes) have shown their superiority.
>
> Having the Maderform hulls in mind and looking at the study plans
of
> SAND PIPER one can find "some" similiar aspects. One might be the
> negative deadrise at the stern. But there is more and this has to
be
> tested. I´ll try to get the plans of SAND PIPER ( with the help
of
> DUCKWORKS as they accept my Master Card ), build a down sized
version
> and test it here on the Baltic. In my cellar I try to twist
sheets of
> aircraft birch ply for a small model to gain an underwater shape
like
> SAND PIPER, to gain the same clever waterflow. But I`m not shure
to
> succeed. Regards, Manfred
>
>
>
>
>
> No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please
be polite.
>
> If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the
plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and
Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the
resulting boat.
>
> The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
> <http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AtkinBoats/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AtkinBoats-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]

No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please be polite.

If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the resulting boat.

The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
<http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• Manfred, I certainly value and respect your openion on Sand Piper. It seems however that the tunnel shape of Sand Piper is not as sophisticated as some of the
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 23, 2005
View Source
Manfred,

I certainly value and respect your openion on Sand Piper. It seems
however that the tunnel shape of Sand Piper is not as sophisticated as
some of the other Atkins designs, (All straight sections and no
closing of the tunnel aperture at the stern.) It is exactly because of
these straight sections that I would not be TOO hesitant in shortening
the middle sections spacing from 24 to 21 inches (leaving the ends
alone) and get the hull length down to just over 26 feet.

I would certainly be interested in learning the results of your model
testing. One attraction of the tunnel stern for me (I don't need the
extreme shallow draft) is the option of putting an access plate in a
waterproof well over the propeller to quickly clear the propeller and
shaft of seaweed (lake weed?) from above. There is a lot of floating
vegetation at various times in our lake and when the going gets rough
and I have to slow down, my outboard will sometimes pick up weeds and
cavitate. I have no experience with weedless propellers and possibly
could not stand the loss of efficiency.

Lewis

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "liokai2002" <manfred.pech@w...> wrote:
>
> Lewis, I don`t think that it is wise to alter a well tested design.
> You will not only have to change the distance between the bulkheads
> bei 14 % but all other parameters ( some with x³) and lines or you
> will ruin the calculated waterflow of Sandpiper. When you compare
> Sand Piper with Huckleberry Finn ( 50 ft ), which has a similiar
> shape, you will find out that there is not only an enlargement by a
> certain amount of percentage. The whole shape is different. I´m not a
> designer, but to me it seems difficult to alter the lengh of a design
> with an underwater shape like the Piper.
>
> But the shape of Sand Piper is so interesting for me that I would
> choose another option. I would try to design my own boat. Compared to
> the other Tunnel Designs Sand Piper does not seem to be very tricky.
> After calculating the length and beam I would make a model and shape
> the underwater part with two small sheets of birch craft ply by
> twisting / torturing after fixing them at the point where they are
> even before they have to be twisted in the other direction. This
> seems to wor - I`ve tried it, but not yet finished. The problem ist
> the last 1/3 . When the model is ready, I`ll try it in the water
> with a balance and another model (I have already some tested "normal
> hulls"). The model should take some weight and when towed, it should
> run as even as possible at all speeds( like Rescue Minor ) and it
> should be able to run with minimum wake ( whorls, vortices, eddies).
> This might be a long way but it is a real challenge and it offers the
> possibility to understand the extraordinary designs of William Atkin
> a little bit better. Regards, Manfred
>
>
>
>
> --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Lewis E. Gordon"
> <l_gordon_nica@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > I have drooled over the plans for Martha Green for years, but the 2'
> > 11" draft is just a bit more than practical for the local waters and
> > the cruising I plan on doing. Thanks for posting the drawings.
> >
> > Another post mentions the many virtues of "Sand Piper". This should
> be
> > an efficient hull but the length and power requirements are both in
> > excess of my requirements. I do love the slender scows/garveys type
> > hulls. Hmmmmm!! From another thread, a 14% length reduction would
> put
> > "Sand Piper" down to 26 feet.
> >
> > Lewis
> >
> >
> > --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "j_freach" <j_freach@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I just posted drawings of Martha Green in the files section under
> > > motroboat drawings. Martha Green is a wonderful little Motor
> Sailor
> > > only 24'long by 8'4" But she has full standing headroom (5'11")for
> > > most people this is enough.
> > >
> > > I did'nt realize she was a motorsailor untill I recieved the
> Plans.
> > > The Atkins boat site is really great but info on most of the
> boats is
> > > a little sparse which leads to wonderful discoveries like the fact
> > > that Martha Green is a Motorsailor.
> > >
> > > The plans call for a Atomic Four engine which puts out about 10
> hp.
> > > and I've found a place where you can get a rebuilt one for under
> \$5000
> > > So this boat can be built to Atkins specs and would perform as the
> > > designer created her to.
> > >
> > > http://www3.telus.net/Atomic_4_Eng_Service/Price_Lists.html
> > >
> > > The link above is the site from which you can get the Atomic Four
> as
> > > well as many other fully rebuilt old motors.
> > >
> > > Jim F
• Hello Ron, tried five times to send you photos and papers of MADERFORM hulls (similiar to SAND PIPER)to your private adress artemis@p.... but all were
Message 1 of 30 , Jan 24, 2005
View Source
Hello Ron, tried five times to send you photos and papers of
adress "artemis@p...." but all were rejected by Mail Delivery
fatal errors..". Whats my failure ? Regards, Manfred

--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald Fossum" <artemis@p...>
wrote:
> Thank you, Manfred, for your kind response. I would certainly
appreciate any information you might have. My internet connection is
DSL so large (up to 5Meg) file size is not an issue.
>
> My intention is to build a turnnel stern Sea Bright Skiff of about
21' 6" LOA, 6' beam and (hopefully) 6" - 7" draft. It will be powered
by a high speed steam plant - total weight of under 350 lbs. - with
engine rpm max at 2000rpm / 15+ shaft HP.
>
> I liked what Robb White did with his version of Rescue Minor, but I
would retain the Atkin plywood construction for the area below the
chines (making it of 1/2" marine plywood - 1" for the flat
bottom/keel). I would develop the topsides as curved forms - much
like the original Sea Bright Skiffs - and use glued plywood lapstrake
planking - ala Ian Oughtred - probably of 3/8" marine plywood. If
you're interested, I could scan some scaled sketches (once they're
completed) and email them to you. I have a copy of "The Sea Bright
Skiff and other shore boats" by Peter Guthorn as well as "Building
Classic Small Craft & More Building Classic Small Craft" by John
Gardner", so have researched the design fairly well. My local Public
Library also has the Motor Boatings Ideal Series (complete) where the
Atkins published all of their Sea Bright Designs (complete with
offsets).
>
> I plan to build a 3/4" = 1' model (as Weston Farmer recommends) to
further refine the design. I then hope to start actual hull
construction sometime this summer and, as I am now retired, have the
hull completed before the rains set in here in Portland, Oregon
(usually in late October). I have some background, professionally, in
wooden boatwright work, mostly in repair and restoration. I still
have a LOT of clamps, etc. to make the work go easier.
>
>
> Ron Fossum, artemis@p...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: liokai2002
> To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 2:18 AM
> Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: Most Efficient Hull??
>
>
>
> Hi Ron, think you will not find "Maderform Hulls" using Google.
Dr.
> Mader is a shipwright and has a wharf called "Hycom" in Duisburg
> (Germany). Suppose there are many Hycoms in the Google world.
When
> you send me your adress, I can post you some papers and pics, not
> professionally, just from one interested "hydrodymaniac" to
another.
> Regards, Manfred
>
>
> --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Ronald Fossum" <artemis@p...>
> wrote:
> > Thank you for your response, Manfred.
> >
> > I have heard of, and seen reference to, "Maderform" hulls - but
did
> not understand the concept. Now I think it would be useful to
know
> more. I used the Google search engine and looked for "Maderform
(lots
> of stuff about a Paul Mader who is heavily involved in
agriculture in
> 3rd world areas).
> >
> > Do you know of any websites that discuss/have information on
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > Ron Fossum
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: liokai2002
> > To: AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:25 PM
> > Subject: [AtkinBoats] Re: Most Efficient Hull??
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Ron,
> > indeed, I would like to do this. But this is not possible for
me.
> > First, the costs to run a water tank test series are very
high
> and
> > I`m retired now with no personal access.
> > Second, there have been tests with similiar hulls since more
than
> 20
> > years by Dr. Paul Mader ( "Maderform" hulls ). And these
hulls
> have
> > been developed year by year and are patented now (think, I´m
up
> to
> > date). They deliver hydrodynamic lift in the after third part
of
> the
> > hull, a very smooth water behind and nearly no whorls (
> vortices )
> > leave the hull. I have a DVD of the last tests in Berlin
which
> shows
> > a very smooth waterflow of the hull and a very stable course.
> >
> > Meanwhile there are some ships with these Maderform hulls on
the
> > BODENSEE and other waterways in Germany, which have proven
their
> > superiority over coventional designs. But as with all new
> > developments there are a lot of established people who deny
the
> > merits of Maderform hulls although all tests and
> computersimulations
> > (Navier-Stokes) have shown their superiority.
> >
> > Having the Maderform hulls in mind and looking at the study
plans
> of
> > SAND PIPER one can find "some" similiar aspects. One might be
the
> > negative deadrise at the stern. But there is more and this
has to
> be
> > tested. I´ll try to get the plans of SAND PIPER ( with the
help
> of
> > DUCKWORKS as they accept my Master Card ), build a down sized
> version
> > and test it here on the Baltic. In my cellar I try to twist
> sheets of
> > aircraft birch ply for a small model to gain an underwater
shape
> like
> > SAND PIPER, to gain the same clever waterflow. But I`m not
shure
> to
> > succeed. Regards, Manfred
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery.
> be polite.
> >
> > If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify
the
> plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and
> Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of
the
> resulting boat.
> >
> > The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
> > <http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ----------
> >
> > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AtkinBoats/
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > AtkinBoats-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]
>
>
>
>
>
> No flaming, cursing, politics, religion or public mopery. Please
be polite.
>
> If you set out to build an Atkin boat, please do not modify the
plans. If you stray from the plans you do so at your own risk and
Atkin & Co. will take no responsibility for the performance of the
resulting boat.
>
> The current Atkin boat plans catalog is online at
> <http://www.atkinboatplans.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
>
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AtkinBoats/
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> AtkinBoats-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]
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.