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

Re: Motorsailers Revisted

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.