63364Re: [bolger] Re: Bolger cruising trimaran?
- Mar 30, 2010John - and everyone,my mentioning of #649 was primarily to offer one option in case the global itinerary may end up pared down to somewhat less ambitious plans including ready cross-continent passage behind a mid-size SUV or atop a container-carrier passage to 'faraway' - and to just remind folks of its existence once multi-hulls are in the mind.
Having lived aboard full-time with Phil throughout 4-seasons incl. 5 winters in New England weather abord his/our RESOLUTION I do have a sense what even single-person sustainable life aboard might benefit from, whether in sweltering heat or being frozen-in solid in salt-water ice. But we never circled the globe of course...
Once going global is indeed firmly and doably on the table, then length-limitations should matter less and less, and real-world 3-4-season habitability should grow in relevance for de facto full-time living-aboard life-style. A longer lean simple-to-build/fast-to-build main-hull might be a sound basis for such plans - and their successful execution all the way to Trans-Pac jaunts or peering at the North-West Passage... Thus I'd venture investigating using a single hull of the DOUBLE EAGLE ("Great Sea") charter catamaran to develop a trimaran on. Without "Great Sea"'s additions and alterations throughout the project, that simple lean sturdy hull-design makes a sound basis for a very different overall geometry, with or without changes to her profile. Each hull is 40' x 4' with around 7000lbs displacement for structure, living-aboard amenities, and long-range provisions. The 'unfashionable-for-a-multihull' profile of D.E. came from single-level big-room accommodations with tankage and storage deep in each hull, fit for 6-pak charter or just longer-autonomy 1-2-some living aboard. The hull-design is thus suitable to start out with before adding wings & hulls to it. With berths fore and aft, single-level 'waking-hours' living could be quite comfortable, in stark contrast to the 24/7/365 sleek-racer school of design which typically suffers from mad man-hour bills for 'sculpting', dictate quite thin skins, are typically uninsulatable for 3+ season utility, and are often very sensitive to loading true live-aboard-plus-trans-atlantic attributes and supplies. 'Fashions' do indeed confuse many 'lists of priorities' from clients over designers and builders and finally literature on 'desirable' geometries. Since 40'x20'x6-berths and 6-person airy main cabin charter-boat DOUBLE EAGLE was built by one man in a longer narrow shop in at least three pieces (an heroic achievement if you let that sink in...), a tri should be doable in quite a bit less time, now taking advantage of lessons learned on our end.
Plywood/cold-molding is useable from shoulder-size 5'6" SHOEBOX, over 149-pac party-boats working from New England to Key West, to (for instance) U.S. Navy's 14-vessel AVENGER-class of 1300+tons displacement on 200+ feet length, active since 1987 in all global tactical and climate challenges from their Texas base to Japan and Bahrain, expected to work for at least 30 years in (most serious) naval duty... And unlike all petro-based/man-made materials, regrowable/domestically-sourceable wood and associated versions of it has not and might never suffer from the dramatic price-escalation that is inherent in all petro-based structural materials. Petro-based epoxy is by weight a defensible fraction of the conventional/or exotic GRP-approaches, even though by value it might at times rival the cost of domestic marine ply by the time you add cloth, tape etc on a larger project - your experience may vary of course. But when you embrace the comparative simplicity of one-off 'home-building' of sizeable structures such as TAHITI or DOUBLE EAGLE - without mold-building or cultivating the typically more challenging one-off all-synthetic approaches - you should be way ahead of any other construction-method. And plywood floats in any thickness. It may not be public information, but AVENGER-class's wood-volume might put her well on the way towards achieving 'sinking resistance' with a few more measures taken, such as via additional volumes of hard buoyancy.
Susanne Altenburger, Phil Bolger & Friends
From: jhess314Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:08 PMSubject: [bolger] Re: Bolger cruising trimaran?
What are the good trimaran designs or elements that have either not been developed to their potential, or have been abandoned prematurely?
What do you find about the Hughes and Brown designs that are compelling for sizes which are appropriate for ocean cruising? Could you elaborate further about the SeaClipper and SeaRunner designs? What is obsolete about them, or what could be improved?
Why are trimarans now considered obsolete for ocean cruising? Is it just the whim of current fashion, or is there a more basic reason? If one were only interested in safe, long-distance cruising, not racing, could a trimaran be designed to carry a substantial load and still be weatherly?
What did you mean when you said that "Plywood is no longer really practical under 30 feet"? Did you mean 'over' 30 feet? Either way, I'm not sure where you are coming from.
And now to make a feeble attempt to bring this back to a Bolger topic, could a narrow, easy-to-build, Bolger square boat, but with a vee'd bow section, be used as the main hull for a trimaran? Possibly like the Schorpioen, but larger, and with no step in the hull for the amas to fit into?
--- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, "proaconstrictor" <proaconstrictor@ ...> wrote:
> I believe he did design a 35 footer...
> I would not touch any multihull he designed with a 10 foot pole. He just didn't get it, or alternatively was working in the dark zones. I mean there are things that multihulls can do that go largely unexplored. Both in terms of stuff one used to commonly see, out there, and stuff that is not commonly done. But in general I don't think he had an aptitude for it.
> If I was looking for an ocean capable catamaran that was easy to build, and possibly cheap, I would look at Oram, or Kelsall. Kelsall is a genius and while I tend not to be drawn to his stuff, I know a number of very dialed in people who went to one of his seminars on KISS and came away sold. Oram is probably the best current value guy for large cats. For trimarans. I would build anything Kurt Hughes designed, or Brown if speed and/or cost were an issue.
> Unfortunately with tris, nobody has really carried on the flame. There is an obvious need to get some decent boats in a simple format like stitch and glue, but nobody is doing it. The reason is that tris are largely considered obsolete for cruising (once you get over the folding/trilering sizes that Farrier does). Brown wise the Searunners are largely obsolete, and the beautiful constant camber boats kinda went down with the Dean Company. The Seaclippers make sense, but could also use some updating which probably won't happen under current conditions. One of the issues is that in the sizes people currently want in these boats some kind of core construction is really required. Plywood is no longer really practical under 30 feet. In NA there really isn't a solution to compare with Duflex down under.
> --- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, "jhess314" <j.hess@> wrote:
> > Does anyone know if Bolger designed an ocean-capable cruising trimaran?
> > Thanks, John
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>