## Re: Otter I and Otter II

Expand Messages
• ... 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 1 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
• 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 2 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

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

Gav, still musing in the greyness of London
• 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 3 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
>
> Without ballast, though, it could be a brute to try to right after
a capsize.
>
> Gav, still musing in the greyness of London
• ... 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 4 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
• ... 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 5 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.