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

Re: Most Efficient Hull??

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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.