Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [AtkinBoats] Re: Most Efficient Hull??

Expand Messages
  • jkohnen@boat-links.com
    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
    • 0 Attachment
      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@...>
      http://www.boat-links.com/
      A paranoid is a man who knows a little of what's going on.
      <William Burroughs>
    • Ronald Fossum
      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 2 of 30 , Jan 16, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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@...>
        http://www.boat-links.com/
        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/>





        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Yahoo! Groups Links

        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]
      • Leo
        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 3 of 30 , Jan 16, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          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?
        • John B. Trussell
          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 4 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            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/>





            ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Yahoo! Groups Links

            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]
          • Mike Dolph
            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 5 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              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?
            • j_freach
              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 6 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                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
                Jabberwock but ended up buying plans for Marth Green instead because
                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?
                >
                > Thanks for your thoughts.
                >
                > Best,
                >
                > Leo
              • liokai2002
                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 7 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  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
                  already in 1922 !!!
                  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
                • Ronald Fossum
                  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 8 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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
                    already in 1922 !!!
                    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/>





                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    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]
                  • Leo
                    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 9 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.


                      Addressing Manfred's comments about River Belle – This would be a
                      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
                    • John B. Trussell
                      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 10 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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.


                        Addressing Manfred's comments about River Belle - This would be a
                        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/>





                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        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]
                      • Ronald Fossum
                        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 11 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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.


                          Addressing Manfred's comments about River Belle - This would be a
                          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/>





                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                          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]
                        • Leo
                          ... 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 12 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- 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
                          • John B. Trussell
                            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 13 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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/>





                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Yahoo! Groups Links

                              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]
                            • Lewis E. Gordon
                              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 14 of 30 , Jan 17, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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
                                about $1,300.

                                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
                                impossible to buy, and forget about marine grade! Good boatbuilding
                                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.
                                >
                                >
                                > Addressing Manfred's comments about River Belle – This would be a
                                > 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
                              • William E. Parker
                                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 15 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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
                                  about $1,300.

                                  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
                                  impossible to buy, and forget about marine grade! Good boatbuilding
                                  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.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Addressing Manfred's comments about River Belle – This would be a
                                  > 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/>





                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  --
                                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                                  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]
                                • Mike Dolph
                                  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 16 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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
                                    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
                                    > about $1,300.
                                    >
                                    > 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
                                    > impossible to buy, and forget about marine grade! Good boatbuilding
                                    > 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.
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Addressing Manfred's comments about River Belle – This would be a
                                    > > 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
                                  • j_freach
                                    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 17 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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
                                      > about $1,300.
                                      >
                                      > 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
                                      > impossible to buy, and forget about marine grade! Good boatbuilding
                                      > 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.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Addressing Manfred's comments about River Belle – This would be a
                                      > > 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
                                    • liokai2002
                                      ... 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 18 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- 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
                                      • Ronald Fossum
                                        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 19 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          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/>





                                          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                                          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]
                                        • David Lightfoot
                                          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 20 of 30 , Jan 18, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            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
                                          • liokai2002
                                            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 21 of 30 , Jan 19, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              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
                                              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/>
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              ----------
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                              >
                                              > 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]
                                            • Lewis E. Gordon
                                              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 22 of 30 , Jan 19, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                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
                                              • liokai2002
                                                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 23 of 30 , Jan 20, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  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
                                                • Ronald Fossum
                                                  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 24 of 30 , Jan 21, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    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.

                                                    Any information/help you can provide would be appreciated.

                                                    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
                                                    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/>
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    ----------
                                                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                    >
                                                    > 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/>





                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                                                    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]
                                                  • Lewis E. Gordon
                                                    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 25 of 30 , Jan 23, 2005
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      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
                                                    • liokai2002
                                                      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 26 of 30 , Jan 24, 2005
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        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 rejected by Mail Delivery
                                                        Subsystem Mailer Daemon .... :" The following adress had permanent
                                                        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.
                                                        >
                                                        > Any information/help you can provide would be appreciated.
                                                        >
                                                        > 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
                                                        > 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/>
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > >
                                                        > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        ----
                                                        > ----------
                                                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                        > >
                                                        > > 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/>
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        >
                                                        > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        ----------
                                                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                        >
                                                        > 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.