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

Otter I and Otter II

Expand Messages
  • Gavin Atkin
    Folks... I ve been through the archives, and it s been all of a couple of months since there was last any talk of the Otters I and II. I think this is a size
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Folks...

      I've been through the archives, and it's been all of a couple of months since
      there was last any talk of the Otters I and II. I think this is a size range that
      interests people quite a lot, but it's striking that so few of either of these boats
      seem to have been built. I wonder why that should be? Is it that people prefer
      Jim Michalak's boats in the same size range?

      It happens that a pal of mine here in the UK has been expressing some
      interest in building an instant-style boat in Otters' size range, and I think either
      boat might well fit the bill.

      Is anything more known about them, other than the info I can see in the
      archives and the books please? I'd very much like to hear more about both
      boats.

      Thanks,

      Gavin Atkin
    • craig o'donnell
      ... Gav, email Dave Carnell (not sure of the address, but I do believe it is mailto:davecarnell@att.net) -- he built one of the Otters, not sure which, and was
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        >Folks...
        >
        >I've been through the archives, and it's been all of a couple of months since
        >there was last any talk of the Otters I and II. I think this is a size
        >range that
        >interests people quite a lot, but it's striking that so few of either of
        >these boats
        >seem to have been built. I wonder why that should be? Is it that people prefer
        >Jim Michalak's boats in the same size range?
        >
        >It happens that a pal of mine here in the UK has been expressing some
        >interest in building an instant-style boat in Otters' size range, and I
        >think either
        >boat might well fit the bill.
        >
        >Is anything more known about them, other than the info I can see in the
        >archives and the books please? I'd very much like to hear more about both
        >boats.
        >
        >Thanks,
        >
        >Gavin Atkin

        Gav,

        email Dave Carnell (not sure of the address, but I do believe it is
        mailto:davecarnell@...) -- he built one of the Otters, not sure which,
        and was not completely satisfied. He'll be happy to go into details.
        --
        Craig O'Donnell
        Sinepuxent Ancestors & Boats
        <http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~fassitt/>
        The Proa FAQ <http://boat-links.com/proafaq.html>
        The Cheap Pages <http://www.friend.ly.net/~dadadata/>
        Sailing Canoes, Polytarp Sails, Bamboo, Chinese Junks,
        American Proas, the Bolger Boat Honor Roll,
        Plywood Boats, Bamboo Rafts, &c.
        _________________________________

        -- Professor of Boatology -- Junkomologist
        -- Macintosh kinda guy
        Friend of Wanda the Wonder Cat, 1991-1997.
        _________________________________
      • Gavin Atkin
        ... months since ... Now, please let s argue. Which is the best, Otter I or Otter II - and why? In one way, I d go for the Otter I: it s uncomplicated,
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 28, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gavin Atkin" <gavinatkin@y...> wrote:
          > Folks...
          >
          > I've been through the archives, and it's been all of a couple of
          months since
          > there was last any talk of the Otters I and II.

          Now, please let's argue. Which is the best, Otter I or Otter II - and
          why?

          In one way, I'd go for the Otter I: it's uncomplicated, unlikely to
          capsize easily, and an under-rated Bolger boat. Not just underrated,
          in fact, but seriously under-rated from what I know of its
          performance. And then there's the Otter II, an attractive design that
          some people say capsizes too easily and others might say was all
          right. But if so, where are the boats?

          Where indeed? If the AS19, Otter and Otter II are disasters, please
          let me know.
        • pvanderwaart
          ... I think the rig of Otter I is too complicated. PCB wrote in a note on Small Boat Journal that Otter II was not completely satisfactory, and required some
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 29, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > Which is the best, Otter I or Otter II - and why?
            > If the AS19, Otter and Otter II are disasters, please
            > let me know.

            I think the rig of Otter I is too complicated. PCB wrote in a note on
            Small Boat Journal that Otter II was not completely satisfactory, and
            required some ballast that he had hoped would be unnecessary. AS19 is
            really a daysailer with a storage cuddy rather than a cabin boat.

            PCB did a column in MAIB about the 20' Wish II design. The original 4-
            sleeper version is agreed to be too ambitious but he developed a 2-
            sleeper version. One or two have been built with some modifications.
            I think it might be just as easy, or even easier, to build as Otter.
            There is also the Long Micro to consider.

            I also agree that Michalak has some good designs of the general Otter
            type.

            Peter
          • Gavin Atkin
            ... I did, and Dave kindly wrote back. He said that the Otter II he had was a good boat but that he d been disappointed to find that it was too heavy at
            Message 5 of 11 , Dec 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, craig o'donnell <dadadata@f...> wrote:


              > email Dave Carnell (not sure of the address, but I do believe it is
              > mailto:davecarnell@a...) -- he built one of the Otters, not sure which,
              > and was not completely satisfied. He'll be happy to go into details.


              I did, and Dave kindly wrote back. He said that the Otter II he had was a good
              boat but that he'd been disappointed to find that it was too heavy at 1500lbs to
              trailer and day sail easily. I must say that I'm surprised at that figure, having
              thought that 500lbs would be nearer the mark. That said it would still be rather
              challenging to launch and retrieve singlehanded at that weight.

              What hull weight would you guys expect?

              Gavin
            • pvanderwaart
              ... Did Dave say if any of that weight was ballast? Five hundred lbs sounds pretty light to me. I would have guessed, offhand and without any computation,
              Message 6 of 11 , Dec 2, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                > too heavy at 1500lbs to
                > trailer and day sail easily.


                Did Dave say if any of that weight was ballast?

                Five hundred lbs sounds pretty light to me. I would have guessed,
                offhand and without any computation, 750-1000 lbs.

                Peter
              • Gavin Atkin
                ... t the boat would usually turn out a little heavier than the designer intended, gi= ven that most of us tend to overbuild at least a little.Now, I m
                Message 7 of 11 , Dec 2, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderw@o...> wrote:

                  > Five hundred lbs sounds pretty light to me.

                  Quite so. My thinking was that Bolger doesn't generally over-engineer his
                  designs and the boat is meant to be unballasted. In practice, I suspect tha=
                  t the
                  boat would usually turn out a little heavier than the designer intended, gi=
                  ven
                  that most of us tend to overbuild at least a little.

                  Now, I'm racking my brains. I don't have his write up to hand, but I think =
                  I
                  remember that Bolger wrote that the Otter II was really a 14ft punt with a =

                  draining well aft for the outboard and a further draining well forward insi=
                  de a
                  cutwater? If that's so, 1500lbs in hull weight seems a lot of displacement =
                  for a
                  14ft boat, particularly when you have to add crew and gear. It also feels a=
                  little
                  too expensive to be a wise investment: what do boats cost to make now, is i=
                  t
                  around £1.50-3/lb painted?

                  Gav, musing in a grey marble office by the River Thames in the heart of
                  London, and watching yet another unrelieved grey east of England sky slithe=
                  r
                  by into the North Sea
                • Gavin Atkin
                  Here s a bit more of what I laughingly call my thinking . I don t remember the details, of the Otter II, but let s assume that it really is a punt of 14ft in
                  Message 8 of 11 , Dec 2, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Here's a bit more of what I laughingly call 'my thinking'.

                    I don't remember the details, of the Otter II, but let's assume that it really is a
                    punt of 14ft in length and, say, 5ft in beam, and, say, 9in deep at its design
                    displacement. The displacement's going to be length times beam times depth
                    times the prismatic coefficient (I'll guess that bit) times the weight of a cubic
                    foot of water. So that's 14 by 5 by 0.75 by 0.6 by 65 - I don't know where this is
                    going yet as I calculate - which makes 2047.5lbs by my calculator. This is of
                    course the roughest of rough calculations, so maybe one should not take too
                    much notice of it, but I suppose it does make a hull weight of 1500lbs just
                    about practical.

                    Without ballast, though, it could be a brute to try to right after a capsize.

                    Gav, still musing in the greyness of London
                  • Chris Stewart
                    Gav, Happen to have a library copy of Different Boats at hand (unfortunately, it has to go back Monday). Otter II is 19 6 x 5 10 . Quoting from his text: The
                    Message 9 of 11 , Dec 7, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Gav,

                      Happen to have a library copy of Different Boats at hand
                      (unfortunately, it has to go back Monday).

                      Otter II is 19'6" x 5'10".

                      Quoting from his text: "The cuddy is watertight; it can't be flooded
                      in any kind of sudden knockdown, and for ordinary coastwise sailing
                      suitable to her size, it makes her self-righting, without any ballast
                      apart from her bottom structure." (Bottom is two layers of 3/8 ply.)

                      "The stem and stern bays are free-flooding. They have holes in the
                      bottom to let the water out. The ends aren't properly part of the
                      hull at all; they are more in the nature of a bowsprit and motor
                      bracket, also serving as fairing to improve the flow of water around
                      what's really a square-ended punt 14 1/2 feet long, of which 6 1/2
                      feet is reliably decked and bulkheaded."

                      "Bulkheads...#4 and #8 are watertight up to vent and companionway
                      openings shown, to enclose dry cuddy on which the boat relies for
                      rserve stability and bouyancy in a knockdown or rainstorm;..." (The
                      vent appears to be about 2'2" up and the companionway opening appears
                      to be start about 2'4" up - virtually the same height as the sheer.)

                      Chris Stewart
                      in the whiteness of New York



                      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Gavin Atkin" <gavinatkin@y...> wrote:
                      > Here's a bit more of what I laughingly call 'my thinking'.
                      >
                      > I don't remember the details, of the Otter II, but let's assume
                      that it really is a
                      > punt of 14ft in length and, say, 5ft in beam, and, say, 9in deep at
                      its design
                      > displacement. The displacement's going to be length times beam
                      times depth
                      > times the prismatic coefficient (I'll guess that bit) times the
                      weight of a cubic
                      > foot of water. So that's 14 by 5 by 0.75 by 0.6 by 65 - I don't
                      know where this is
                      > going yet as I calculate - which makes 2047.5lbs by my calculator.
                      This is of
                      > course the roughest of rough calculations, so maybe one should not
                      take too
                      > much notice of it, but I suppose it does make a hull weight of
                      1500lbs just
                      > about practical.
                      >
                      > Without ballast, though, it could be a brute to try to right after
                      a capsize.
                      >
                      > Gav, still musing in the greyness of London
                    • Gavin Atkin
                      ... You ll have to find a photocopier before then! So my guesses were not so far out. I still think 1500lbs too heavy, 500lbs rather light and that Peter VW s
                      Message 10 of 11 , Dec 7, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Stewart" <stewtone@m...> wrote:
                        > Gav,
                        >
                        > Happen to have a library copy of Different Boats at hand
                        > (unfortunately, it has to go back Monday).
                        >
                        > Otter II is 19'6" x 5'10".

                        You'll have to find a photocopier before then!

                        So my guesses were not so far out. I still think 1500lbs too heavy,
                        500lbs rather light and that Peter VW's estimate of 700lbs is likely
                        to be close.

                        I should have a long talk with my friend, for I think that either of
                        the Otters would be good for the area where we live, where we have a
                        terrific big sheltered estuary with many mud banks etc, and where I
                        think a leeboard sharpie would have a lot to recommend it.

                        Gav
                      • Bruce Hallman
                        ... Just looked Otter II up in _Different Boats_, and find that Otter II is kind of like a shrunken Black Skimmer. Seems like a useful camping / trailing boat.
                        Message 11 of 11 , Dec 7, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- "Chris Stewart" <stewtone@m...> wrote:
                          > Otter II is 19'6" x 5'10".

                          Just looked Otter II up in _Different
                          Boats_, and find that Otter II is
                          kind of like a shrunken Black Skimmer.

                          Seems like a useful camping / trailing
                          boat.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.