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

Re: Otter I and Otter II

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.