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

Moccasin, BC maybe?

Expand Messages
  • Harry James
    I have always been a fan of the Moccasin since I first saw it in Folding Schooner. I just ran across this picture on a blog of a new Moccasin taken in the
    Message 1 of 20 , Mar 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I have always been a fan of the Moccasin since I first saw it in Folding
      Schooner. I just ran across this picture on a blog of a new Moccasin
      taken in the Pacific NW somewhere last summer. It is on a private dock
      and looks absolutely pristine. Anybody know anything about this boat,
      seen it at Port Townsend?? Might not be wood.

      http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eB0yHCJcprg/SOvYGNPA7RI/AAAAAAAAAIw/poal-NDGJ4M/s1600/HPIM3358.JPG

      *http://tinyurl.com/c3k9mx*

      I would love to get my hands on pictures of this boat under sail. Pretty
      good chance the boat is in BC judging form the other pics in the blog .
      Any of you BC guys know of her?

      HJ


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bruce Hallman
      ... Wow!
      Message 2 of 20 , Mar 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > I just ran across this picture on a blog of a new Moccasin

        Wow!
      • Harry James
        I bet you THATS a Bolger boat you always wanted to build . Wow is correct, in addition to liking to see it sail, I wouldn t mind just sitting and looking
        Message 3 of 20 , Mar 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I bet you THATS a Bolger boat you always wanted to build <VBG>.

          Wow is correct, in addition to liking to see it sail, I wouldn't mind
          just sitting and looking at it for an hour or two.

          HJ

          Bruce Hallman wrote:
          >> I just ran across this picture on a blog of a new Moccasin
          >>
          >
          > Wow!
          >
          >
          >
        • Doug Pollard
          ... Beautiful boat and fast according to a friend the sailed on the first one. She and a Crocker 30 1/2 ft. ketch that I once owned were the inspiration for
          Message 4 of 20 , Mar 3, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Harry James wrote:
            >
            > I have always been a fan of the Moccasin since I first saw it in Folding
            > Schooner. I just ran across this picture on a blog of a new Moccasin
            > taken in the Pacific NW somewhere last summer. It is on a private dock
            > and looks absolutely pristine. Anybody know anything about this boat,
            > seen it at Port Townsend?? Might not be wood.
            >
            > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eB0yHCJcprg/SOvYGNPA7RI/AAAAAAAAAIw/poal-NDGJ4M/s1600/HPIM3358.JPG
            > <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eB0yHCJcprg/SOvYGNPA7RI/AAAAAAAAAIw/poal-NDGJ4M/s1600/HPIM3358.JPG>
            >
            > *http://tinyurl.com/c3k9mx* <http://tinyurl.com/c3k9mx*>
            >
            > I would love to get my hands on pictures of this boat under sail. Pretty
            > good chance the boat is in BC judging form the other pics in the blog .
            > Any of you BC guys know of her?
            >
            > HJ
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            Beautiful boat and fast according to a friend the sailed on the first
            one. She and a Crocker 30 1/2 ft. ketch that I once owned were the
            inspiration for My Aluminum Wolftrap. Moccasin is probably my all time
            favorite boat.
            Doug
          • Bob Slimak
            Darrell, At this point I really couldn t say. If you don t mind the slower speeds, that is a sure thing. Trying to get higher speeds AND good gas mileage is
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 3, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Darrell,
              At this point I really couldn't say. If you don't mind the slower speeds, that is a sure thing. Trying to get higher speeds AND good gas mileage is iffy. That's why I said I wish there was a way to try all the outboard options, both for speed and fuel usage. I don't have that option. I can tell you a story with a Micro Trawler, however. A friend of mine owns the Micro trawler I built in 1994. That was the one Bolger designed to plane with a 25 hp outboard. As everyone knows, it didn't. It may have if you never went cruising, but once filled with the food, water, etc. it was just too heavy. It turned out that 40 to 45 was really needed. I didn't want to go that route and simply used it with a 9.9 high thrust and settled for slow speeds. When my friend got it he put on a big 70 2 stroke, after beefing up the transom considerably. With this he achieved 27 mph with a couple of people, and one time with 6 people aboard still hit 22. With normal loading of two people cruising he could cruise at 18 or 20 at 2/3s throttle. However, like me, he prefers spending most of his time going slow near shore to view the scenery and wildlife. He has gone back to a 9.9 high thrust. I guess the moral here is that Bantam, like the Micro trawler probably could benefit from using a 40 hp, but would only be good for people who think boating is all about getting somewhere fast. Another option for SOME people, not me, is to find a way to have twin outboards. Use one when you want to go slow, both when you need speed. Two 15's, however, would not give as high a speed as one 30, and would probably use more fuel, not to mention the higher cost of two engines.
              Trying to go fast cheaply just seems to be a dream. Can only be done in a very small boat.
              Bob



              --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "hobyarr" <knic0014@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello Bob, John, Bruce and all
              > So do you reckon that it is a straight trade off - rocker and 7/8
              > speed with very good economy or flat rear run and higher speed but
              > lower economy.
              > What about the larger motors and running at most economical revs.
              > Or possibility of keeping cabin weight down (as Bruce mentions in next
              > post) with sitting headroom height and poptop all out of foam and
              > keeping it to about 11'/12'with larger for and aft deck. Is this going
              > to provide the "planing while stationary" state.
              > Thanks - Darrell
              >
              > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Slimak" <otter55806@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Hi Darrell,
              > > If you put rocker into the aft hulls you are now a displacement hull.
              > > Trying to go up on plane would only make the rear squat down and the
              > > bow rise. need a straight run aft to plane. It's the same old thing
              > > of no one boat perfect for all things. An efficient displacement hull
              > > does not plane well. A boat that planes well will leave more of a wake
              > > at displacement speeds and use more fuel due to drag. Such is life,
              > > nothing is perfect:) I don't think it's possible to get 9/10 knots if
              > > you build with rocker, even at 26'. At 26' with the added weight of
              > > the hull, larger cabin, etc. you may not get that with the 25 HP
              > > without rocker. There are so many options with engines nowdays that I
              > > wish there was somewhere to rent all the different ones for an hour or
              > > two at a time. I have a friend who has the 9.9 on his Micro Trawler,
              > > so maybe I can talk him into letting me try that for a day this
              > > summer, but no way to try the other options. It would be nice to see
              > > what the Honda 15 and 20 does. If one wanted high speed more than low
              > > it would even be interesting to see what the 40 HP high thrust does,
              > > and what kind of mileage one would get with it cut back to, say 15
              > > mph. That may get better mileage than the 25 running all out. All
              > > kinds of options, no way to try them:(
              > > Bob
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "hobyarr" <knic0014@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Thanks for the explanations Bob and it's good to see you excited by
              > > > the prospects for improvements.
              > > > With the option to run the bottom up to the waterline at the stern,to
              > > > reduce wake and hence improve economy, would this then mean the Bantam
              > > > would only be happy operating in displacement (semi) mode.
              > > > This is not personally a problem for me provided it would run up to
              > > > about 9/10 knot. Do you believe this is achievable and what would be
              > > > the hull speed do you thimk. Is it going to cheat the mono formula due
              > > > to narrow hulls if we built at about the 24'-26' ft mark.
              > > > The fixed bow option sounds like the way to go, don't fancy trying to
              > > > back onto a trailer especially with some wind and wave. You'd have to
              > > > cut and raise the motor to avoid fouling the trailer pretty early I
              > > > imagine.
              > > > I was in Melbourne about a month ago and had similar problems but
              > > > luckily found a ferry that toured along the waterfront to
              > > > Williamstown, this was the only way to see anything much.
              > > > Thanks again - Darrell
              > > >
              > > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Slimak" <otter55806@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > Hi Darrell,
              > > > > Glad to see that John did read the post and answer. Now I'm really
              > > > > psyched up to try the 9.9 instead of the 25. I really want
              > better gas
              > > > > mileage. I know gas will not stay this cheap. His posting makes me
              > > > > want to get back to Florida next winter and do the keys.
              > > > > What I mean by the cabin not being attached is that the cabin sides
              > > > > fold up and hook to the underside of the cabin top. At that
              > point the
              > > > > cabin top and sides are only floating on the cables from the 4
              > post.
              > > > > When you have the top winched all the way up you then fold up
              > the rear
              > > > > panel and the two front panels. The front door is hinged to the port
              > > > > side front panel. These panels are attached to the boat. With
              > them in
              > > > > the up position you then unhook the side panels and let them drop
              > > > > down. Then you slowly winch the top down until it mates with the
              > other
              > > > > panels. You then lock the top into place with two turnbuckles
              > at the
              > > > > front, snugged up only by hand. This locks the top and sides to the
              > > > > panels that ARE attached to the boat. As I said before, this is
              > > > > actually easy with two people, but a pain with one, as the cabin top
              > > > > and sides float on those cables and wind, gravity by not being
              > level,
              > > > > etc means it has to be pushed into alignment for it to snap into
              > > > > place. Easy with two, a pain with one. If I end up keeping the
              > boat as
              > > > > is, I'm thinking of changing the hand winch over to a 12V remote
              > > > > controlled motor so I can be inside as it lowers to push things into
              > > > > place. I can't do that and be outside hand cranking the winch. John
              > > > > solved all this by building a regular non folding cabin since he was
              > > > > not trailering far. If you order the plans from Bolger I believe you
              > > > > get all the updates.
              > > > > Oh yeah. Toms article mentions the removeable bow section.
              > That was
              > > > > on the original because the original client wanted the boat to fit
              > > > > into a small garage. Not ever having a reason to want to remove the
              > > > > bow I built it without that. Much easier. Because I don't
              > remove the
              > > > > bow I trailer it in the normal bow forward way instead of trying to
              > > > > back onto the trailer, which you have to do in order to remove the
              > > > > bow. You can see that in Toms photos.
              > > > > Anyway, all this talk about boating has me wishing summer would
              > hurry
              > > > > up and get here. Also have to make sure I don't get stuck here next
              > > > > winter like I did this one. I have been gone the last three
              > winter and
              > > > > don't much like being stuck here this one:(
              > > > > On another note, I have a friend who is down in Melbourne for a few
              > > > > weeks. He emailed that he wanted to walk down by the water to
              > see if
              > > > > he could find some boats to look at, but said everything was being
              > > > > ruined by condo construction. Such a shame that you're having the
              > > > > same destruction that we have had with these human sized beehives. I
              > > > > always hope for Hurricanes to come along and knock them down. They
              > > > > don't belong on a coast.
              > > > > Bob
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "hobyarr" <knic0014@> wrote:
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Hello Bob, John and all
              > > > > > There are heaps of mods to the original Bantam that enhance it's
              > > > > > useabilty and economy. When ordering plans what do we ask for or
              > > what
              > > > > > do we get. Do we just recieve the original and annoy you fellows
              > > later
              > > > > > on and work it out or do the plans include the mods mentioned in
              > > > > > previous posts and do we need to specifically ask for them.
              > > > > > So far we've seen lengths from 20'-26'in 2' increments and
              > > bridgedeck
              > > > > > clearance from 5"-12" and transom depth from 0-6".
              > > > > > Are there any variations on the motor mounting, extending the
              > > sponsons
              > > > > > behind the main hull and motor mount to protect motor and provide
              > > > > > steps for access. Any other design thoughts, mods, etc
              > > > > > Thanks - Darrell
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • Harry James
              I was thinking that she was way up on her lines and then after blowing up the pic a little bit I think she is in a berth that puts her aground. HJ ...
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 3, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                I was thinking that she was way up on her lines and then after blowing
                up the pic a little bit I think she is in a berth that puts her aground.

                HJ


                Doug Pollard wrote:
                > Harry James wrote:
                >
                >> I have always been a fan of the Moccasin since I first saw it in Folding
                >> Schooner. I just ran across this picture on a blog of a new Moccasin
                >> taken in the Pacific NW somewhere last summer. It is on a private dock
                >> and looks absolutely pristine. Anybody know anything about this boat,
                >> seen it at Port Townsend?? Might not be wood.
                >>
                >> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eB0yHCJcprg/SOvYGNPA7RI/AAAAAAAAAIw/poal-NDGJ4M/s1600/HPIM3358.JPG
                >> <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eB0yHCJcprg/SOvYGNPA7RI/AAAAAAAAAIw/poal-NDGJ4M/s1600/HPIM3358.JPG>
                >>
                >> *http://tinyurl.com/c3k9mx* <http://tinyurl.com/c3k9mx*>
                >>
                >> I would love to get my hands on pictures of this boat under sail. Pretty
                >> good chance the boat is in BC judging form the other pics in the blog .
                >> Any of you BC guys know of her?
                >>
                >> HJ
                >>
                >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >>
                >>
                >>
                > Beautiful boat and fast according to a friend the sailed on the first
                > one. She and a Crocker 30 1/2 ft. ketch that I once owned were the
                > inspiration for My Aluminum Wolftrap. Moccasin is probably my all time
                > favorite boat.
                > Doug
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Ron Badley
                I think that boat is in a little lagoon inside Maple Bay on Vancouver Island. It s been while since I was over that way, but, one never forgets a pretty boat.
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 3, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  I think that boat is in a little lagoon inside Maple Bay on
                  Vancouver Island. It's been while since I was over that way, but, one
                  never forgets a pretty boat. Try Google earth maybe?

                  RonB.





                  On 3-Mar-09, at 1:08 PM, Harry James wrote:

                  > I have always been a fan of the Moccasin since I first saw it in
                  > Folding
                  > Schooner. I just ran across this picture on a blog of a new Moccasin
                  > taken in the Pacific NW somewhere last summer. It is on a private dock
                  > and looks absolutely pristine. Anybody know anything about this boat,
                  > seen it at Port Townsend?? Might not be wood.
                  >
                  > http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eB0yHCJcprg/SOvYGNPA7RI/AAAAAAAAAIw/poal-NDGJ4M/s1600/HPIM3358.JPG
                  >
                  > *http://tinyurl.com/c3k9mx*
                  >
                  > I would love to get my hands on pictures of this boat under sail.
                  > Pretty
                  > good chance the boat is in BC judging form the other pics in the
                  > blog .
                  > Any of you BC guys know of her?
                  >
                  > HJ
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Bolger rules!!!
                  > - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
                  > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging
                  > dead horses
                  > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred'
                  > posts
                  > - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
                  > - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930,
                  > Fax: (978) 282-1349
                  > - Unsubscribe: bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > - Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • alefoot
                  Home port shown as Cowichan Bay, there are a couple of pictures on this thread on WoodenBoat magazine s forum
                  Message 8 of 20 , Mar 3, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Home port shown as Cowichan Bay, there are a couple of pictures on this thread on WoodenBoat magazine's forum

                    http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86262

                    ...one of which shows her afloat, but under power rather than sail.

                    cheers
                    Derek
                  • Harry James
                    Thanks for that further link, I saved all the photos. Boat lust is a peculiar thing, mostly unrequited--quite similar to feelings for unobtainable persona s
                    Message 9 of 20 , Mar 3, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks for that further link, I saved all the photos.

                      Boat lust is a peculiar thing, mostly unrequited--quite similar to
                      feelings for unobtainable persona's of great attractiveness on screen or
                      in magazines. I first fell in love with the Moccasin in the 70's reading
                      Folding Schooner in a cold bunk in a cabin in Nome AK. I daydreamed
                      about winning the OSTAR with her.

                      This gentleman has spent a fortune to achieve his dream and I thank him
                      for it.

                      HJ

                      alefoot wrote:
                      > Home port shown as Cowichan Bay, there are a couple of pictures on this thread on WoodenBoat magazine's forum
                      >
                      > http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86262
                      >
                      > ...one of which shows her afloat, but under power rather than sail.
                      >
                      > cheers
                      > Derek
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Dave Gentry
                      ... I took those pics, I suspect that s my blog, etc. I posted pics of her here, a while back. She is indeed in a little cove on the S end of Maple Bay, on
                      Message 10 of 20 , Mar 4, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > I just ran across this picture on a blog of a new Moccasin
                        > taken in the Pacific NW somewhere last summer. It is on a private dock
                        > and looks absolutely pristine. Anybody know anything about this boat,
                        >

                        I took those pics, I suspect that's my blog, etc. I posted pics of her here, a while back.

                        She is indeed in a little cove on the S end of Maple Bay, on Vancouver Island. Yes, you can just make her out on google earth. It's a very shallow inlet, and the boat was sitting on the bottom when I took those pics from my kayak.

                        One of my favorite Bolger designs . . . I couldn't believe it when I saw her!

                        Dave Gentry

                        Interesting to find that people have actually seen my old cruising blog.
                      • Harry James
                        Found the blog with a google of Moccasin and I can t even remember why I was looking now. I totally missed your posting the pics. Many thanks. HJ
                        Message 11 of 20 , Mar 4, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Found the blog with a google of Moccasin and I can't even remember why I
                          was looking now. I totally missed your posting the pics. Many thanks.

                          HJ

                          Dave Gentry wrote:
                          >> I just ran across this picture on a blog of a new Moccasin
                          >> taken in the Pacific NW somewhere last summer. It is on a private dock
                          >> and looks absolutely pristine. Anybody know anything about this boat,
                          >>
                          >>
                          >
                          > I took those pics, I suspect that's my blog, etc. I posted pics of her here, a while back.
                          >
                          > She is indeed in a little cove on the S end of Maple Bay, on Vancouver Island. Yes, you can just make her out on google earth. It's a very shallow inlet, and the boat was sitting on the bottom when I took those pics from my kayak.
                          >
                          > One of my favorite Bolger designs . . . I couldn't believe it when I saw her!
                          >
                          > Dave Gentry
                          >
                          > Interesting to find that people have actually seen my old cruising blog.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Bolger rules!!!
                          > - NO "GO AWAY SPAMMER!" posts!!! Please!
                          > - no cursing, flaming, trolling, spamming, respamming, or flogging dead horses
                          > - stay on topic, stay on thread, punctuate, no 'Ed, thanks, Fred' posts
                          > - Pls add your comments at the TOP, SIGN your posts, and snip away
                          > - Plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349
                          > - Unsubscribe: bolger-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > - Open discussion: bolger_coffee_lounge-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • hobyarr
                          Thanks for all your assistance Bob It looks like displacement is the way to go unless you turn up something miraculous in your future mods. Will look out for
                          Message 12 of 20 , Mar 6, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thanks for all your assistance Bob
                            It looks like displacement is the way to go unless you turn up something miraculous in your future mods.
                            Will look out for your results.
                            Thanks again - Darrell

                            --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Slimak" <otter55806@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Darrell,
                            > At this point I really couldn't say. If you don't mind the slower speeds, that is a sure thing. Trying to get higher speeds AND good gas mileage is iffy. That's why I said I wish there was a way to try all the outboard options, both for speed and fuel usage. I don't have that option. I can tell you a story with a Micro Trawler, however. A friend of mine owns the Micro trawler I built in 1994. That was the one Bolger designed to plane with a 25 hp outboard. As everyone knows, it didn't. It may have if you never went cruising, but once filled with the food, water, etc. it was just too heavy. It turned out that 40 to 45 was really needed. I didn't want to go that route and simply used it with a 9.9 high thrust and settled for slow speeds. When my friend got it he put on a big 70 2 stroke, after beefing up the transom considerably. With this he achieved 27 mph with a couple of people, and one time with 6 people aboard still hit 22. With normal loading of two people cruising he could cruise at 18 or 20 at 2/3s throttle. However, like me, he prefers spending most of his time going slow near shore to view the scenery and wildlife. He has gone back to a 9.9 high thrust. I guess the moral here is that Bantam, like the Micro trawler probably could benefit from using a 40 hp, but would only be good for people who think boating is all about getting somewhere fast. Another option for SOME people, not me, is to find a way to have twin outboards. Use one when you want to go slow, both when you need speed. Two 15's, however, would not give as high a speed as one 30, and would probably use more fuel, not to mention the higher cost of two engines.
                            > Trying to go fast cheaply just seems to be a dream. Can only be done in a very small boat.
                            > Bob
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "hobyarr" <knic0014@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Hello Bob, John, Bruce and all
                            > > So do you reckon that it is a straight trade off - rocker and 7/8
                            > > speed with very good economy or flat rear run and higher speed but
                            > > lower economy.
                            > > What about the larger motors and running at most economical revs.
                            > > Or possibility of keeping cabin weight down (as Bruce mentions in next
                            > > post) with sitting headroom height and poptop all out of foam and
                            > > keeping it to about 11'/12'with larger for and aft deck. Is this going
                            > > to provide the "planing while stationary" state.
                            > > Thanks - Darrell
                            > >
                            > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Slimak" <otter55806@> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > > Hi Darrell,
                            > > > If you put rocker into the aft hulls you are now a displacement hull.
                            > > > Trying to go up on plane would only make the rear squat down and the
                            > > > bow rise. need a straight run aft to plane. It's the same old thing
                            > > > of no one boat perfect for all things. An efficient displacement hull
                            > > > does not plane well. A boat that planes well will leave more of a wake
                            > > > at displacement speeds and use more fuel due to drag. Such is life,
                            > > > nothing is perfect:) I don't think it's possible to get 9/10 knots if
                            > > > you build with rocker, even at 26'. At 26' with the added weight of
                            > > > the hull, larger cabin, etc. you may not get that with the 25 HP
                            > > > without rocker. There are so many options with engines nowdays that I
                            > > > wish there was somewhere to rent all the different ones for an hour or
                            > > > two at a time. I have a friend who has the 9.9 on his Micro Trawler,
                            > > > so maybe I can talk him into letting me try that for a day this
                            > > > summer, but no way to try the other options. It would be nice to see
                            > > > what the Honda 15 and 20 does. If one wanted high speed more than low
                            > > > it would even be interesting to see what the 40 HP high thrust does,
                            > > > and what kind of mileage one would get with it cut back to, say 15
                            > > > mph. That may get better mileage than the 25 running all out. All
                            > > > kinds of options, no way to try them:(
                            > > > Bob
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "hobyarr" <knic0014@> wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Thanks for the explanations Bob and it's good to see you excited by
                            > > > > the prospects for improvements.
                            > > > > With the option to run the bottom up to the waterline at the stern,to
                            > > > > reduce wake and hence improve economy, would this then mean the Bantam
                            > > > > would only be happy operating in displacement (semi) mode.
                            > > > > This is not personally a problem for me provided it would run up to
                            > > > > about 9/10 knot. Do you believe this is achievable and what would be
                            > > > > the hull speed do you thimk. Is it going to cheat the mono formula due
                            > > > > to narrow hulls if we built at about the 24'-26' ft mark.
                            > > > > The fixed bow option sounds like the way to go, don't fancy trying to
                            > > > > back onto a trailer especially with some wind and wave. You'd have to
                            > > > > cut and raise the motor to avoid fouling the trailer pretty early I
                            > > > > imagine.
                            > > > > I was in Melbourne about a month ago and had similar problems but
                            > > > > luckily found a ferry that toured along the waterfront to
                            > > > > Williamstown, this was the only way to see anything much.
                            > > > > Thanks again - Darrell
                            > > > >
                            > > > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Slimak" <otter55806@> wrote:
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Hi Darrell,
                            > > > > > Glad to see that John did read the post and answer. Now I'm really
                            > > > > > psyched up to try the 9.9 instead of the 25. I really want
                            > > better gas
                            > > > > > mileage. I know gas will not stay this cheap. His posting makes me
                            > > > > > want to get back to Florida next winter and do the keys.
                            > > > > > What I mean by the cabin not being attached is that the cabin sides
                            > > > > > fold up and hook to the underside of the cabin top. At that
                            > > point the
                            > > > > > cabin top and sides are only floating on the cables from the 4
                            > > post.
                            > > > > > When you have the top winched all the way up you then fold up
                            > > the rear
                            > > > > > panel and the two front panels. The front door is hinged to the port
                            > > > > > side front panel. These panels are attached to the boat. With
                            > > them in
                            > > > > > the up position you then unhook the side panels and let them drop
                            > > > > > down. Then you slowly winch the top down until it mates with the
                            > > other
                            > > > > > panels. You then lock the top into place with two turnbuckles
                            > > at the
                            > > > > > front, snugged up only by hand. This locks the top and sides to the
                            > > > > > panels that ARE attached to the boat. As I said before, this is
                            > > > > > actually easy with two people, but a pain with one, as the cabin top
                            > > > > > and sides float on those cables and wind, gravity by not being
                            > > level,
                            > > > > > etc means it has to be pushed into alignment for it to snap into
                            > > > > > place. Easy with two, a pain with one. If I end up keeping the
                            > > boat as
                            > > > > > is, I'm thinking of changing the hand winch over to a 12V remote
                            > > > > > controlled motor so I can be inside as it lowers to push things into
                            > > > > > place. I can't do that and be outside hand cranking the winch. John
                            > > > > > solved all this by building a regular non folding cabin since he was
                            > > > > > not trailering far. If you order the plans from Bolger I believe you
                            > > > > > get all the updates.
                            > > > > > Oh yeah. Toms article mentions the removeable bow section.
                            > > That was
                            > > > > > on the original because the original client wanted the boat to fit
                            > > > > > into a small garage. Not ever having a reason to want to remove the
                            > > > > > bow I built it without that. Much easier. Because I don't
                            > > remove the
                            > > > > > bow I trailer it in the normal bow forward way instead of trying to
                            > > > > > back onto the trailer, which you have to do in order to remove the
                            > > > > > bow. You can see that in Toms photos.
                            > > > > > Anyway, all this talk about boating has me wishing summer would
                            > > hurry
                            > > > > > up and get here. Also have to make sure I don't get stuck here next
                            > > > > > winter like I did this one. I have been gone the last three
                            > > winter and
                            > > > > > don't much like being stuck here this one:(
                            > > > > > On another note, I have a friend who is down in Melbourne for a few
                            > > > > > weeks. He emailed that he wanted to walk down by the water to
                            > > see if
                            > > > > > he could find some boats to look at, but said everything was being
                            > > > > > ruined by condo construction. Such a shame that you're having the
                            > > > > > same destruction that we have had with these human sized beehives. I
                            > > > > > always hope for Hurricanes to come along and knock them down. They
                            > > > > > don't belong on a coast.
                            > > > > > Bob
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "hobyarr" <knic0014@> wrote:
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > > > Hello Bob, John and all
                            > > > > > > There are heaps of mods to the original Bantam that enhance it's
                            > > > > > > useabilty and economy. When ordering plans what do we ask for or
                            > > > what
                            > > > > > > do we get. Do we just recieve the original and annoy you fellows
                            > > > later
                            > > > > > > on and work it out or do the plans include the mods mentioned in
                            > > > > > > previous posts and do we need to specifically ask for them.
                            > > > > > > So far we've seen lengths from 20'-26'in 2' increments and
                            > > > bridgedeck
                            > > > > > > clearance from 5"-12" and transom depth from 0-6".
                            > > > > > > Are there any variations on the motor mounting, extending the
                            > > > sponsons
                            > > > > > > behind the main hull and motor mount to protect motor and provide
                            > > > > > > steps for access. Any other design thoughts, mods, etc
                            > > > > > > Thanks - Darrell
                            > > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • graeme19121984
                            The heavy boat needs more power to provide more speed to provide more dynamic lift. Either way if it s an efficient planer at speed its bottom s angle of
                            Message 13 of 20 , Mar 10, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              The heavy boat needs more power to provide more speed to provide more dynamic lift. Either way if it's an efficient planer at speed its bottom's angle of attack to the horizontal water plane will be similar - around 2 to 3 degrees. The stern will be deeper than the bow - the opposite to a normal displacement sailing hull or the usual tin or plastic run-about with the deep forefoot.

                              On the plane, only a very short length of the aft bottom will actually support the boat. Usually, like a water skier taking off, there will be a lot of the bottom in contact with the water and the attitude will be steep at low (semi ?) planing speeds, but, keeping lift constant (the force opposing the skier's weight), both contact area and attack angle will decrease to the smaller values necessary at higher planing speeds. The planing State boats are there in that attitudinal zone already when stopped - they just rise up a litle.

                              Graeme

                              --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > of no one boat perfect for all things. An efficient displacement hull
                              > > does not plane well. A boat that planes well will leave more of a wake
                              > > at displacement speeds and use more fuel due to drag. Such is life,
                              > > nothing is perfect:)
                              >
                              > The biggest trade off, having a deep in the middle belly, versus a
                              > flat run aft; you mention. The other trade off is weight. A very
                              > light boat, per wetted area, planes easier than the same boat with
                              > lots of heavy topside work, cabin etc.. I conclude that this light
                              > weight is key to the PCB theory of the Tennessee and the state series
                              > boats. I think that is what he is saying when he mentions that these
                              > boat are planing while stationary, and why they have such a low wake.
                              >
                            • my48cj2a
                              I had a chance to see the Bantam Houseboat Pelican about a month ago.What a nice boat. It just glides along with little or no wake.I had a chance to board her
                              Message 14 of 20 , Mar 12, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I had a chance to see the Bantam Houseboat Pelican about a month ago.What a nice boat. It just glides along with little or no wake.I had a chance to board her and she was very stable.A fine piece of work.I can only hope to meet up with them again soon one day.In my new Phil Bolger Tennessee Sharpie.Maybe I will get lucky and get to see the Sneakeasy he has.After watching her glide away I am sure it gets the mileage he says it does.He mentioned something about a sail could be installed on her also.Now that is thinking ahead.

                                --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "hobyarr" <knic0014@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Thanks for all your assistance Bob
                                > It looks like displacement is the way to go unless you turn up something miraculous in your future mods.
                                > Will look out for your results.
                                > Thanks again - Darrell
                                >
                                > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Slimak" <otter55806@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Darrell,
                                > > At this point I really couldn't say. If you don't mind the slower speeds, that is a sure thing. Trying to get higher speeds AND good gas mileage is iffy. That's why I said I wish there was a way to try all the outboard options, both for speed and fuel usage. I don't have that option. I can tell you a story with a Micro Trawler, however. A friend of mine owns the Micro trawler I built in 1994. That was the one Bolger designed to plane with a 25 hp outboard. As everyone knows, it didn't. It may have if you never went cruising, but once filled with the food, water, etc. it was just too heavy. It turned out that 40 to 45 was really needed. I didn't want to go that route and simply used it with a 9.9 high thrust and settled for slow speeds. When my friend got it he put on a big 70 2 stroke, after beefing up the transom considerably. With this he achieved 27 mph with a couple of people, and one time with 6 people aboard still hit 22. With normal loading of two people cruising he could cruise at 18 or 20 at 2/3s throttle. However, like me, he prefers spending most of his time going slow near shore to view the scenery and wildlife. He has gone back to a 9.9 high thrust. I guess the moral here is that Bantam, like the Micro trawler probably could benefit from using a 40 hp, but would only be good for people who think boating is all about getting somewhere fast. Another option for SOME people, not me, is to find a way to have twin outboards. Use one when you want to go slow, both when you need speed. Two 15's, however, would not give as high a speed as one 30, and would probably use more fuel, not to mention the higher cost of two engines.
                                > > Trying to go fast cheaply just seems to be a dream. Can only be done in a very small boat.
                                > > Bob
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "hobyarr" <knic0014@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > Hello Bob, John, Bruce and all
                                > > > So do you reckon that it is a straight trade off - rocker and 7/8
                                > > > speed with very good economy or flat rear run and higher speed but
                                > > > lower economy.
                                > > > What about the larger motors and running at most economical revs.
                                > > > Or possibility of keeping cabin weight down (as Bruce mentions in next
                                > > > post) with sitting headroom height and poptop all out of foam and
                                > > > keeping it to about 11'/12'with larger for and aft deck. Is this going
                                > > > to provide the "planing while stationary" state.
                                > > > Thanks - Darrell
                                > > >
                                > > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Slimak" <otter55806@> wrote:
                                > > > >
                                > > > > Hi Darrell,
                                > > > > If you put rocker into the aft hulls you are now a displacement hull.
                                > > > > Trying to go up on plane would only make the rear squat down and the
                                > > > > bow rise. need a straight run aft to plane. It's the same old thing
                                > > > > of no one boat perfect for all things. An efficient displacement hull
                                > > > > does not plane well. A boat that planes well will leave more of a wake
                                > > > > at displacement speeds and use more fuel due to drag. Such is life,
                                > > > > nothing is perfect:) I don't think it's possible to get 9/10 knots if
                                > > > > you build with rocker, even at 26'. At 26' with the added weight of
                                > > > > the hull, larger cabin, etc. you may not get that with the 25 HP
                                > > > > without rocker. There are so many options with engines nowdays that I
                                > > > > wish there was somewhere to rent all the different ones for an hour or
                                > > > > two at a time. I have a friend who has the 9.9 on his Micro Trawler,
                                > > > > so maybe I can talk him into letting me try that for a day this
                                > > > > summer, but no way to try the other options. It would be nice to see
                                > > > > what the Honda 15 and 20 does. If one wanted high speed more than low
                                > > > > it would even be interesting to see what the 40 HP high thrust does,
                                > > > > and what kind of mileage one would get with it cut back to, say 15
                                > > > > mph. That may get better mileage than the 25 running all out. All
                                > > > > kinds of options, no way to try them:(
                                > > > > Bob
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "hobyarr" <knic0014@> wrote:
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > Thanks for the explanations Bob and it's good to see you excited by
                                > > > > > the prospects for improvements.
                                > > > > > With the option to run the bottom up to the waterline at the stern,to
                                > > > > > reduce wake and hence improve economy, would this then mean the Bantam
                                > > > > > would only be happy operating in displacement (semi) mode.
                                > > > > > This is not personally a problem for me provided it would run up to
                                > > > > > about 9/10 knot. Do you believe this is achievable and what would be
                                > > > > > the hull speed do you thimk. Is it going to cheat the mono formula due
                                > > > > > to narrow hulls if we built at about the 24'-26' ft mark.
                                > > > > > The fixed bow option sounds like the way to go, don't fancy trying to
                                > > > > > back onto a trailer especially with some wind and wave. You'd have to
                                > > > > > cut and raise the motor to avoid fouling the trailer pretty early I
                                > > > > > imagine.
                                > > > > > I was in Melbourne about a month ago and had similar problems but
                                > > > > > luckily found a ferry that toured along the waterfront to
                                > > > > > Williamstown, this was the only way to see anything much.
                                > > > > > Thanks again - Darrell
                                > > > > >
                                > > > > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Slimak" <otter55806@> wrote:
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > Hi Darrell,
                                > > > > > > Glad to see that John did read the post and answer. Now I'm really
                                > > > > > > psyched up to try the 9.9 instead of the 25. I really want
                                > > > better gas
                                > > > > > > mileage. I know gas will not stay this cheap. His posting makes me
                                > > > > > > want to get back to Florida next winter and do the keys.
                                > > > > > > What I mean by the cabin not being attached is that the cabin sides
                                > > > > > > fold up and hook to the underside of the cabin top. At that
                                > > > point the
                                > > > > > > cabin top and sides are only floating on the cables from the 4
                                > > > post.
                                > > > > > > When you have the top winched all the way up you then fold up
                                > > > the rear
                                > > > > > > panel and the two front panels. The front door is hinged to the port
                                > > > > > > side front panel. These panels are attached to the boat. With
                                > > > them in
                                > > > > > > the up position you then unhook the side panels and let them drop
                                > > > > > > down. Then you slowly winch the top down until it mates with the
                                > > > other
                                > > > > > > panels. You then lock the top into place with two turnbuckles
                                > > > at the
                                > > > > > > front, snugged up only by hand. This locks the top and sides to the
                                > > > > > > panels that ARE attached to the boat. As I said before, this is
                                > > > > > > actually easy with two people, but a pain with one, as the cabin top
                                > > > > > > and sides float on those cables and wind, gravity by not being
                                > > > level,
                                > > > > > > etc means it has to be pushed into alignment for it to snap into
                                > > > > > > place. Easy with two, a pain with one. If I end up keeping the
                                > > > boat as
                                > > > > > > is, I'm thinking of changing the hand winch over to a 12V remote
                                > > > > > > controlled motor so I can be inside as it lowers to push things into
                                > > > > > > place. I can't do that and be outside hand cranking the winch. John
                                > > > > > > solved all this by building a regular non folding cabin since he was
                                > > > > > > not trailering far. If you order the plans from Bolger I believe you
                                > > > > > > get all the updates.
                                > > > > > > Oh yeah. Toms article mentions the removeable bow section.
                                > > > That was
                                > > > > > > on the original because the original client wanted the boat to fit
                                > > > > > > into a small garage. Not ever having a reason to want to remove the
                                > > > > > > bow I built it without that. Much easier. Because I don't
                                > > > remove the
                                > > > > > > bow I trailer it in the normal bow forward way instead of trying to
                                > > > > > > back onto the trailer, which you have to do in order to remove the
                                > > > > > > bow. You can see that in Toms photos.
                                > > > > > > Anyway, all this talk about boating has me wishing summer would
                                > > > hurry
                                > > > > > > up and get here. Also have to make sure I don't get stuck here next
                                > > > > > > winter like I did this one. I have been gone the last three
                                > > > winter and
                                > > > > > > don't much like being stuck here this one:(
                                > > > > > > On another note, I have a friend who is down in Melbourne for a few
                                > > > > > > weeks. He emailed that he wanted to walk down by the water to
                                > > > see if
                                > > > > > > he could find some boats to look at, but said everything was being
                                > > > > > > ruined by condo construction. Such a shame that you're having the
                                > > > > > > same destruction that we have had with these human sized beehives. I
                                > > > > > > always hope for Hurricanes to come along and knock them down. They
                                > > > > > > don't belong on a coast.
                                > > > > > > Bob
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "hobyarr" <knic0014@> wrote:
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > > > Hello Bob, John and all
                                > > > > > > > There are heaps of mods to the original Bantam that enhance it's
                                > > > > > > > useabilty and economy. When ordering plans what do we ask for or
                                > > > > what
                                > > > > > > > do we get. Do we just recieve the original and annoy you fellows
                                > > > > later
                                > > > > > > > on and work it out or do the plans include the mods mentioned in
                                > > > > > > > previous posts and do we need to specifically ask for them.
                                > > > > > > > So far we've seen lengths from 20'-26'in 2' increments and
                                > > > > bridgedeck
                                > > > > > > > clearance from 5"-12" and transom depth from 0-6".
                                > > > > > > > Are there any variations on the motor mounting, extending the
                                > > > > sponsons
                                > > > > > > > behind the main hull and motor mount to protect motor and provide
                                > > > > > > > steps for access. Any other design thoughts, mods, etc
                                > > > > > > > Thanks - Darrell
                                > > > > > > >
                                > > > > > >
                                > > > > >
                                > > > >
                                > > >
                                > >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.