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

Motorsailers Revisted

Expand Messages
  • prairiedog2332
    For recent members I would like to revisit Jim s philosophy regarding motorsailers. In a nutshell he doesn t like the idea much. A hull that motors well with a
    Message 1 of 11 , Mar 4, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      For recent members I would like to revisit Jim's philosophy regarding motorsailers. In a nutshell he doesn't like the idea much. A hull that motors well with a bigger motor does not tend to sail well as the stern has to be broader and the run aft flatter and tends to drag at the stern when under sail and so don't often get used as much as a sail boat and mostly the sails are wasted as the motor is used most of the time.


      We had a discussion regarding Twister which he offers as a Power/Sail design. (The other being Fatcat2) Both have a wider stern and a bit straighter run aft than most of his other designs. I have to buck a fairly fast current going upstream around islands in the river to get to the lake. So wondered if it would work with an even flatter run aft to prevent the stern from bogging down with more power. He still hated the idea. And since then have to agree. With it's shallow draft you can still motor closer to shore and make headway easily. Still a bit nervous as sand can be ingested in the motor if getting too shallow.


      My Twister plans got stolen before I could build so bought another set. Still wondering if I "could" add a bit flatter run aft. As he mentions often when motoring the winds are just right for sailing and when getting to the lake the winds die and you end up motoring anyway. Often when looking out over our lakes I see sail boats either sitting still or motorsailing. Thing is at higher elevations and in hot weather there is not a lot "weight" to the air. So another reason for adding a larger sail area that is easily reefed like a junk rig.


      http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/twister/index.htm


      Nels
    • tom s
      you might want to consider researching some kind of catamaran or outrigger. much higher displacement speed, less heeling under sail. Malcolm Tennant has some
      Message 2 of 11 , Mar 4, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        you might want to consider researching some kind of catamaran or outrigger. much higher displacement speed, less heeling under sail. Malcolm Tennant has some great articles regarding this.

        Sent from my iPad

        On Mar 4, 2013, at 3:51 PM, "prairiedog2332" <nelsarv@...> wrote:

        > For recent members I would like to revisit Jim's philosophy regarding motorsailers. In a nutshell he doesn't like the idea much. A hull that motors well with a bigger motor does not tend to sail well as the stern has to be broader and the run aft flatter and tends to drag at the stern when under sail and so don't often get used as much as a sail boat and mostly the sails are wasted as the motor is used most of the time.
        >
        > We had a discussion regarding Twister which he offers as a Power/Sail design. (The other being Fatcat2) Both have a wider stern and a bit straighter run aft than most of his other designs. I have to buck a fairly fast current going upstream around islands in the river to get to the lake. So wondered if it would work with an even flatter run aft to prevent the stern from bogging down with more power. He still hated the idea. And since then have to agree. With it's shallow draft you can still motor closer to shore and make headway easily. Still a bit nervous as sand can be ingested in the motor if getting too shallow.
        >
        > My Twister plans got stolen before I could build so bought another set. Still wondering if I "could" add a bit flatter run aft. As he mentions often when motoring the winds are just right for sailing and when getting to the lake the winds die and you end up motoring anyway. Often when looking out over our lakes I see sail boats either sitting still or motorsailing. Thing is at higher elevations and in hot weather there is not a lot "weight" to the air. So another reason for adding a larger sail area that is easily reefed like a junk rig.
        >
        > http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/twister/index.htm
        >
        > Nels
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • prairiedog2332
        I have Trilars plans. Twister meets my criteria regarding size and weight (16x16 350 lbs.) simplicity to build and trailerabilty. Can sleep two under cover
        Message 3 of 11 , Mar 4, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I have Trilars plans.
          Twister meets my criteria regarding size and weight (16x16 350 lbs.)
          simplicity to build and trailerabilty. Can sleep two under cover
          snuggled up if built with the extended bridge deck which one has been
          built. The pram bow and flat bottom aft gives more interior space than a
          multi-chine with pointy bow the same length. Yet the warped V entry
          makes for less pounding in a chop over a flat bottomed pram. Flat
          bottom in the aft section "might" get some semi-planing flotation going
          over a multi-chine hull? My thinking is a bit straighter run in the aft
          section might just give more semi-planing ability than the aft rocker
          shown on the plans. At the cost of some sailing efficiency if the stern
          drags at the corners when heeled under sail.

          I also want the ability to venture into backwaters and creeks for
          shelter overnight as well as trying a yuloh and even poling to do that.
          But mainly my post was to share what other folks may be looking at as a
          versatile design. Sort of a hybrid design option over just a sail boat?

          Nels


          --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, tom s <tdsoren@...> wrote:
          >
          > you might want to consider researching some kind of catamaran or
          outrigger. much higher displacement speed, less heeling under sail.
          Malcolm Tennant has some great articles regarding this.
          >
          > Sent from my iPad
          >




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • prairiedog2332
          Made a typo in the previous post. Of course the Twister is 16x6 350 lb.There are some photos of a Twister here.
          Message 4 of 11 , Mar 5, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Made a typo in the previous post. Of course the Twister is 16x6 350
            lb.There are some photos of a Twister here.
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Michalak/photos/album/396809197/pic/list

            Couple things that caught my eye, With the broad transom there is room
            to mount the motor right on the centre line and off-set the rudder
            which I prefer. But the corners and bottom of the transom are almost
            dragging even with the bottom rocker shown in the plans and Owen's wife
            sitting forward on the bridge deck. Twister will handle up to a 5-6 hp
            4-stroke and these are not light and act as a lever back there on the
            stern. So chances are the corner of the transom is going to drag anyway
            under sail unless you use a smaller, lighter OB. And probably the
            helmsperson sitting forward more on the side seat in the cockpit and
            using a tiller extension. Owen has short removable side seats in his
            build - between the bridge deck and the stern flotation chamber - a nice
            mod.

            Bolger mentions in an article about his Brick design: "It's possible
            that running the bottom straight back to a perfectly rectangular stern
            would increase capacity more than resistance." (That is with no motor -
            just the helms person) So with less rocker you get more carrying
            capacity for the heavier motor plus it runs more level under power.

            But this can be overdone, too flat a run aft not only causes the transom
            corners to drag under sail but also pushes the bow down from the force
            of the sail and affects the steerage. Not so much with a pram bow but
            more so with a pointy bow. So am wondering if a bit of compromise with
            maybe half as much rocker than shown on the plans might help off-set the
            motor leverage?

            Another thing that occurs to me is that this is an unballasted design.
            So maybe going with a somewhat smaller low aspect sail area is a good
            idea and try to sail with the boat staying upright which the flat bottom
            helps in that regard. Jim mentions it is not a very fast sail boat
            anyway and the main purpose is to get some sailing experience and the
            chance to shut off the motor and enjoy some leisurely sailing or
            trolling.

            It does demonstrate the trade-off challenges required when designing a
            motorsailor. In my case leaning more towards the motoring ability in
            having to deal with going upstream on a river.

            Nels


            --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <nelsarv@...> wrote:
            >
            > I have Trilars plans.
            > Twister meets my criteria regarding size and weight (16x16 350 lbs.)




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • John
            Maybe making the stern just a little wider will do the trick. Looking at the plan you could add 2 of width to the transom and maybe 1 to the aft cockpit
            Message 5 of 11 , Mar 5, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Maybe making the stern just a little wider will do the trick. Looking at the plan you could add 2" of width to the transom and maybe 1" to the aft cockpit bulkhead. Keeping the same hull flare your change would not change the looks of the boat. See how many square inches of additional area it will give you.

              In hind-sight the motor well of Hapscut could of been about 2" wider at the bottom. (1" either side of centerline)

              I can get 6.5mph on a fully loaded Hapscut (1000lbs) with a Nissan 4hp, 4 stroke outboard. A 3.5hp would push it also and save about 16 pounds of weight on the transom.

              I bet the least amount of trouble would be to widen the stern and not change the rocker. I recently got into some big waves and high winds and was glad I could sit at the transom and keep the bow out of the backside of the waves we were overtaking. If the rocker had been flattered I would of just plowed into the waves.

              --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <nelsarv@...> wrote:
              >
              > Made a typo in the previous post. Of course the Twister is 16x6 350
              > lb.There are some photos of a Twister here.
              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Michalak/photos/album/396809197/pic/list
              >
              > Couple things that caught my eye, With the broad transom there is room
              > to mount the motor right on the centre line and off-set the rudder
              > which I prefer. But the corners and bottom of the transom are almost
              > dragging even with the bottom rocker shown in the plans and Owen's wife
              > sitting forward on the bridge deck. Twister will handle up to a 5-6 hp
              > 4-stroke and these are not light and act as a lever back there on the
              > stern. So chances are the corner of the transom is going to drag anyway
              > under sail unless you use a smaller, lighter OB. And probably the
              > helmsperson sitting forward more on the side seat in the cockpit and
              > using a tiller extension. Owen has short removable side seats in his
              > build - between the bridge deck and the stern flotation chamber - a nice
              > mod.
              >
              > Bolger mentions in an article about his Brick design: "It's possible
              > that running the bottom straight back to a perfectly rectangular stern
              > would increase capacity more than resistance." (That is with no motor -
              > just the helms person) So with less rocker you get more carrying
              > capacity for the heavier motor plus it runs more level under power.
              >
              > But this can be overdone, too flat a run aft not only causes the transom
              > corners to drag under sail but also pushes the bow down from the force
              > of the sail and affects the steerage. Not so much with a pram bow but
              > more so with a pointy bow. So am wondering if a bit of compromise with
              > maybe half as much rocker than shown on the plans might help off-set the
              > motor leverage?
              >
              > Another thing that occurs to me is that this is an unballasted design.
              > So maybe going with a somewhat smaller low aspect sail area is a good
              > idea and try to sail with the boat staying upright which the flat bottom
              > helps in that regard. Jim mentions it is not a very fast sail boat
              > anyway and the main purpose is to get some sailing experience and the
              > chance to shut off the motor and enjoy some leisurely sailing or
              > trolling.
              >
              > It does demonstrate the trade-off challenges required when designing a
              > motorsailor. In my case leaning more towards the motoring ability in
              > having to deal with going upstream on a river.
              >
              > Nels
              >
              >
              > --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <nelsarv@> wrote:
              > >
              > > I have Trilars plans.
              > > Twister meets my criteria regarding size and weight (16x16 350 lbs.)
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • prairiedog2332
              Thanks John for sharing your experience! 6.5 mph would really do the job! The thing is I think Hapscut has about 4 ft. more waterline length with the motor
              Message 6 of 11 , Mar 5, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Thanks John for sharing your experience!


                6.5 mph would really do the job! The thing is I think Hapscut has about
                4 ft. more waterline length with the motor well you added? That would
                make for a very easily driven displacement hull. Some of the currents I
                would have to deal with are in the order of 5 mph or so and Jim was
                kind to share that 5 mph is about the best you can get with the Twister
                design. I have a 5 hp Honda 4-stroke. Adding power would cause the
                stern to sink and dig a bigger hole in the water and not accomplish
                anything. Flattening the run aft would spoil the sailing performance -
                so he did not like that idea.


                My trailer and my building space restrict me to 16 ft at most. A Hapscut
                shortened is an idea but may end up with same same hull speed as Twister
                maybe. So thinking of a way to prevent the stern from sinking and
                digging a bigger hole somehow as being a possibility even if the
                sailing ability suffers.


                There was an idea suggested about adding a flat shallow box keel faired
                in to the after section of a sailing scow to improve motoring ability.
                It is in the files section in pdf format. Not sure if that idea was ever
                tried.

                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Michalak/files/Sailing%20scow%20to%20motor\
                %20scow/

                Another thought is to add adjustable flaps to the stern and raise them
                and the motor when sailing. The idea is to get the stern to stay high
                enough to get into a semi-plane mode yet adding enough flotation to help
                prevent the transom corners from dragging and slow it in sailing mode.
                "Semi-planing" is always a subject of much conjecture. Jim mentioned
                that many photos showing a hull planing are not really planing.

                Can't tell from looking at the plans online - but looking at the photos
                - I think Twister's transom is as wide as Hapcuts? Hapscut has higher
                sides and wider at the top with more flare but seems to narrow down more
                towards the stern? But will look at that option for sure! Hoping this
                adds some info for the group and sorry for being so wordy. Will leave
                off for now. Am finding Yahoo very unfriendly when trying to post.

                Nels



                --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "John" <goodman_clan@...> wrote:
                >
                > Maybe making the stern just a little wider will do the trick. Looking
                at the plan you could add 2" of width to the transom and maybe 1" to the
                aft cockpit bulkhead. Keeping the same hull flare your change would not
                change the looks of the boat. See how many square inches of additional
                area it will give you.
                >
                > In hind-sight the motor well of Hapscut could of been about 2" wider
                at the bottom. (1" either side of centerline)
                >
                > I can get 6.5mph on a fully loaded Hapscut (1000lbs) with a Nissan
                4hp, 4 stroke outboard. A 3.5hp would push it also and save about 16
                pounds of weight on the transom.
                >
                > I bet the least amount of trouble would be to widen the stern and not
                change the rocker. I recently got into some big waves and high winds and
                was glad I could sit at the transom and keep the bow out of the backside
                of the waves we were overtaking. If the rocker had been flattered I
                would of just plowed into the waves.
                >




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • John
                Here is some information I shared with Jim concerning Hapscut. The bottom of my motor well transom measures 34 wide including the chine logs. It should of
                Message 7 of 11 , Mar 6, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Here is some information I shared with Jim concerning Hapscut.

                  The bottom of my motor well transom measures 34" wide including the chine logs. It should of been at least 35"-36" to make the curve along the chine log more smooth and attractive. (I notice it. Others don't)

                  Hapscut when fully loaded has an "at rest" water line of 15'-1" and a draft of 2.75".

                  Here is the link to a video of my motoring into the wind with a slight chop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cpX4eaqS6M

                  Having some type of trim tab on the transom sounds like a complicated mess. I built a model of Hapscut with a "sugar scoop" transom that can be seen in the Photo Album called "Hapscut". I thought it might work better than an engine well. The model showed me it would not work.

                  Hapscut was the biggest boat I could build and store in my garage so I understand the limitations of available space. Twister should work well for you.
                • prairiedog2332
                  Thanks again John, Hapscut is one amazing design and you and family have tested out the prototype very thoroughly and am quite certain Jim agrees with the
                  Message 8 of 11 , Mar 6, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Thanks again John,

                    Hapscut is one amazing design and you and family have tested out the
                    prototype very thoroughly and am quite certain Jim agrees with the added
                    transom width. The video was great showing what it can do under power at
                    less than half throttle with a 4 hp Tohatsu 4-stroke. Obviously the
                    15' waterline really helps and so does the bit narrower bottom with more
                    flare than Jim has done previously. Less pounding with that light draft
                    and getting the balance just right. Then just quartering a bit into the
                    bigger waves as you already mentioned.


                    I reviewed several of Jim's designs especially the earlier AF series.
                    They had narrow raised transoms - with lots of rocker - but back then
                    most people only had 2-3.5 hp 2-strokes which are less than half the
                    weight of today's 4-strokes. Of course the original sharpies had no
                    outboard motors so the smaller capacity back there was not a problem.


                    His only "true" motorsailer was the Petesboat.


                    http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/petesboat/index.htm


                    Based on Jewelbox.


                    http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/jewelbox/index.htm


                    Unfortunately neither link shows the underwater rocker profiles but
                    obviously the Petesboat - meant to plane - had a flatter run aft but
                    not as flat as say the AF4 as it was meant to sail as well as motor.
                    Pretty sure Jewelbox has more curvature aft than Hapscut. But the thing
                    Jim mentioned that caught my attention was he widened the transom on
                    Petesboat:-)

                    So I think I should build a scale model of Twister and see how wide I
                    could go and still keep a smooth curve to the topsides. So my conclusion
                    is that if planning to use a 4-stroke OB of 4+ hp a person might
                    consider looking at designs with a wider transom than some of his
                    earlier ones. This also allows one to mount the heavier motor on the
                    centreline and still have space for and off-set rudder. If you want to
                    use a lighter motor - like the Honda 2 then fine to off-set the motor
                    and go with an older design.

                    Nels



                    --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "John" <goodman_clan@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Here is some information I shared with Jim concerning Hapscut.
                    >
                    > The bottom of my motor well transom measures 34" wide including the
                    chine logs. It should of been at least 35"-36" to make the curve along
                    the chine log more smooth and attractive. (I notice it. Others don't)
                    >
                    > Hapscut when fully loaded has an "at rest" water line of 15'-1" and a
                    draft of 2.75".
                    >
                    > Here is the link to a video of my motoring into the wind with a slight
                    chop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cpX4eaqS6M
                    >
                    > Having some type of trim tab on the transom sounds like a complicated
                    mess. I built a model of Hapscut with a "sugar scoop" transom that can
                    be seen in the Photo Album called "Hapscut". I thought it might work
                    better than an engine well. The model showed me it would not work.
                    >
                    > Hapscut was the biggest boat I could build and store in my garage so I
                    understand the limitations of available space. Twister should work well
                    for you.
                    >



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Joseph Stromski
                    Frolic2 might be considered a motorsailer also. From plan description: I intended this to be a multi skiff sort of boat with rowing and motoring abilities.
                    Message 9 of 11 , Mar 6, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Frolic2 might be considered a motorsailer also. From plan description:
                      "I intended this to be a multi skiff sort of boat with rowing and motoring
                      abilities. You can't row a boat of this size in any wind or waves but in a calm
                      you can travel far if you have patience. I didn't fool around with a gadget
                      motor mount - I put the motor well right in the middle and offset the rudder
                      instead of the other way around. This worked out very well on the high
                      powered Petesboat. "

                      Best,
                      Joe





                      ________________________________
                      From: prairiedog2332 <nelsarv@...>
                      To: Michalak@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Wed, March 6, 2013 11:22:19 AM
                      Subject: [Michalak] Re: Motorsailers Revisted


                      Thanks again John,

                      Hapscut is one amazing design and you and family have tested out the
                      prototype very thoroughly and am quite certain Jim agrees with the added
                      transom width. The video was great showing what it can do under power at
                      less than half throttle with a 4 hp Tohatsu 4-stroke. Obviously the
                      15' waterline really helps and so does the bit narrower bottom with more
                      flare than Jim has done previously. Less pounding with that light draft
                      and getting the balance just right. Then just quartering a bit into the
                      bigger waves as you already mentioned.

                      I reviewed several of Jim's designs especially the earlier AF series.
                      They had narrow raised transoms - with lots of rocker - but back then
                      most people only had 2-3.5 hp 2-strokes which are less than half the
                      weight of today's 4-strokes. Of course the original sharpies had no
                      outboard motors so the smaller capacity back there was not a problem.

                      His only "true" motorsailer was the Petesboat.

                      http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/petesboat/index.htm

                      Based on Jewelbox.

                      http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/jewelbox/index.htm

                      Unfortunately neither link shows the underwater rocker profiles but
                      obviously the Petesboat - meant to plane - had a flatter run aft but
                      not as flat as say the AF4 as it was meant to sail as well as motor.
                      Pretty sure Jewelbox has more curvature aft than Hapscut. But the thing
                      Jim mentioned that caught my attention was he widened the transom on
                      Petesboat:-)

                      So I think I should build a scale model of Twister and see how wide I
                      could go and still keep a smooth curve to the topsides. So my conclusion
                      is that if planning to use a 4-stroke OB of 4+ hp a person might
                      consider looking at designs with a wider transom than some of his
                      earlier ones. This also allows one to mount the heavier motor on the
                      centreline and still have space for and off-set rudder. If you want to
                      use a lighter motor - like the Honda 2 then fine to off-set the motor
                      and go with an older design.

                      Nels

                      --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "John" wrote:
                      >
                      > Here is some information I shared with Jim concerning Hapscut.
                      >
                      > The bottom of my motor well transom measures 34" wide including the
                      chine logs. It should of been at least 35"-36" to make the curve along
                      the chine log more smooth and attractive. (I notice it. Others don't)
                      >
                      > Hapscut when fully loaded has an "at rest" water line of 15'-1" and a
                      draft of 2.75".
                      >
                      > Here is the link to a video of my motoring into the wind with a slight
                      chop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cpX4eaqS6M
                      >
                      > Having some type of trim tab on the transom sounds like a complicated
                      mess. I built a model of Hapscut with a "sugar scoop" transom that can
                      be seen in the Photo Album called "Hapscut". I thought it might work
                      better than an engine well. The model showed me it would not work.
                      >
                      > Hapscut was the biggest boat I could build and store in my garage so I
                      understand the limitations of available space. Twister should work well
                      for you.
                      >

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • prairiedog2332
                      Absolutely agree. And I hear Caroline would qualify as would Fatcat2 that is shown on the plans site as a Power/Sail design. I like the idea of the flat
                      Message 10 of 11 , Mar 6, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Absolutely agree. And I hear Caroline would qualify as would Fatcat2
                        that is shown on the plans site as a Power/Sail design.


                        I like the idea of the flat bottom aft on Twister to perhaps give a bit
                        more weight capacity for a 5 hp 4-stroke over the multi-chine designs
                        back there in the stern? Plus the length matches my trailer and building
                        shed better. I guess the decision has to do with how you plan to use the
                        boat most of the time?


                        The above designs are certainly superior in sailing performance and
                        seaworthiness whereas I live on the river bank.

                        Nels



                        --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Stromski <j.stromski@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Frolic2 might be considered a motorsailer also. From plan description:
                        > "I intended this to be a multi skiff sort of boat with rowing and
                        motoring
                        > abilities. You can't row a boat of this size in any wind or waves but
                        in a calm
                        > you can travel far if you have patience. I didn't fool around with a
                        gadget
                        > motor mount - I put the motor well right in the middle and offset the
                        rudder
                        > instead of the other way around. This worked out very well on the high
                        > powered Petesboat. "
                        >
                        > Best,
                        > Joe
                        >




                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • prairiedog2332
                        After reflecting on this subject for some time it suddenly occurred to me that a design that has the water ballast option is the best way to go. DOH!
                        Message 11 of 11 , Mar 11, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          After reflecting on this subject for some time it suddenly occurred to
                          me that a design that has the water ballast option is the best way to
                          go. DOH!

                          Traditionally motorsailers have a small sail plan to compensate for
                          their lack of ballast when in motoring mode, which would mean dragging
                          weight that just burns more gas. So that brought me back the ballast
                          bags like used on wake boats to increase the size of the wake. So might
                          be an idea with Twister, Fatcat2, or other designs that motor well but
                          don't have water ballast as a part of the overall design to hold up a
                          larger sailplan when in sailing mode. So a ballast bag under the bridge
                          deck that is easily filled when wanting to sail and then emptied when
                          wanting to motor or to sleep to allow the foot space under the bridge
                          deck might be an option and worth the investment. Located amidships
                          might help keep the transom from dragging under sail and the crew can
                          relax in the upwind cockpit seat and keep the bow up going downwind. Of
                          course an option to consider after trying with no ballast as designed.


                          http://www.wakemakers.com/wakeboard-ballast-bags?gclid=CITMj-OE9rUCFVSVM\
                          godiloAUw


                          This might do the job for $60


                          http://www.wakemakers.com/straight-line-big-bag-150-ballast-bag.html


                          Ideally add the cost of a pump for about another $100

                          http://www.wakemakers.com/launch-pad-sumo-pump.html


                          Nels


                          --- In Michalak@yahoogroups.com, "prairiedog2332" <nelsarv@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Absolutely agree. And I hear Caroline would qualify as would Fatcat2
                          > that is shown on the plans site as a Power/Sail design.
                          >




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.