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

Re: Otter I and Otter II

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.