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

Re: NJ Sneakeasy...

Expand Messages
  • highoveryou
    Thanks Harry, I was thinking about that too... how much room is between the tails? Might not be enough for an 85 Merc 25 to swing. Even had another idea,
    Message 1 of 12 , Apr 14, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks Harry,

      I was thinking about that too... how much room is between the tails? Might not be enough for an '85 Merc 25 to swing.

      Even had another idea, but probably just that. How about the running gear from a jet ski? Sure would reduce the draft even further, and make a cleaner transom for a traditional look. Although that'd probably kill any slow speed handling!

      Jeff



      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
      >
      > Fritz Funk cruised his on the upper Mississippi, 200 miles on a tank of
      > gas with a 15 hp. I have ridden with him in a light chop here in Juneau
      > and it was a total non issue. The ducktails act like a tunnel when he
      > tilts the motor up between them. In the Wisconsin lakes and slough's he
      > has literally pulled up next to grounded jon boat to pull people off. At
      > slow speeds it does not turn well. 25 hp is a little high. Might be room
      > issues.
      >
      > HJ
      >
      >
      > highoveryou wrote:
      > > Hi,
      > >
      > > New here, and to building boats. I started looking at all the plans, and will make a pram of somekind as a tender for a larger boat I have.
      > >
      > > I came across the Sneakeasy, and love the look. Not very practical, but who cares! She looks a little flimsy, though. Not much in the way of a keel. Most of my boating in on the Delaware river. Not to rough, but boat traffic can be a bear. How well does this design take wake? Any idea on draft, and how she handles in tight areas?
      > >
      > > I have a 25hsp Merc that could use a good home!
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > >
      > > Jeff
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > 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
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
    • Christopher C. Wetherill
      There is a variant with a Box Keel/Sponson configuration. This would be more stable, sturdy, and maneuverable. It would also be harder to build. ...
      Message 2 of 12 , Apr 14, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        There is a variant with a Box Keel/Sponson configuration. This would be
        more stable, sturdy, and maneuverable. It would also be harder to build.

        highoveryou wrote:
        > Thanks Harry,
        >
        > I was thinking about that too... how much room is between the tails? Might not be enough for an '85 Merc 25 to swing.
        >
        > Even had another idea, but probably just that. How about the running gear from a jet ski? Sure would reduce the draft even further, and make a cleaner transom for a traditional look. Although that'd probably kill any slow speed handling!
        >
        > Jeff
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Harry James <welshman@...> wrote:
        >
        >> Fritz Funk cruised his on the upper Mississippi, 200 miles on a tank of
        >> gas with a 15 hp. I have ridden with him in a light chop here in Juneau
        >> and it was a total non issue. The ducktails act like a tunnel when he
        >> tilts the motor up between them. In the Wisconsin lakes and slough's he
        >> has literally pulled up next to grounded jon boat to pull people off. At
        >> slow speeds it does not turn well. 25 hp is a little high. Might be room
        >> issues.
        >>
        >> HJ
        >>
        >>
        >> highoveryou wrote:
        >>
        >>> Hi,
        >>>
        >>> New here, and to building boats. I started looking at all the plans, and will make a pram of somekind as a tender for a larger boat I have.
        >>>
        >>> I came across the Sneakeasy, and love the look. Not very practical, but who cares! She looks a little flimsy, though. Not much in the way of a keel. Most of my boating in on the Delaware river. Not to rough, but boat traffic can be a bear. How well does this design take wake? Any idea on draft, and how she handles in tight areas?
        >>>
        >>> I have a 25hsp Merc that could use a good home!
        >>>
        >>> Thanks,
        >>>
        >>> Jeff
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> ------------------------------------
        >>>
        >>> 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
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > 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
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • daschultz2000
        IMO, Add another 1/2 layer of ply to the bottom with a couple of 2x4 keels and it will be ready for choppy conditions, and will handle better. RE swinging
        Message 3 of 12 , Apr 14, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          IMO, Add another 1/2" layer of ply to the bottom with a couple of 2x4 'keels' and it will be ready for choppy conditions, and will handle better. RE swinging the 25hp Merc., just have to take some measurements. The trouble I would see with widening the opening is that you'd also be giving up buoyancy at the same time adding a somewhat heavier motor. Tradeoffs, Sigh!

          Yeah the 25 may be a bit big, but it's only a problem it you use all the hp and try to turn. ;-D. And, my idea to thicken the bottom a bit would add strength and weight to handle the hp a bit better.

          BTW one "solution" would be to build an Idaho as an open runabout. It's a 31' version of pretty much the same boat, and 25hp makes good sense.

          Either would be an ez build, have great classic looks, and be a blast to cruise about in on a pleasant afternoon.

          Don Schultz



          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "highoveryou" <highoveryou@...> wrote:
          >
          > ......I came across the Sneakeasy, and love the look. Not very practical, but who cares! She looks a little flimsy, though. Not much in the way of a keel. Most of my boating in on the Delaware river. Not to rough, but boat traffic can be a bear. How well does this design take wake? Any idea on draft, and how she handles in tight areas?
          >
          > I have a 25hsp Merc that could use a good home!
          >
          > Thanks,
          >
          > Jeff
          >
        • daschultz2000
          I ve looked pretty hard at this. The Duckworks site has a link to an old do it yourself site about cutting up a jet ski and grafting it into the bottom of a
          Message 4 of 12 , Apr 14, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            I've looked pretty hard at this. The Duckworks site has a link to an old do it yourself site about cutting up a jet ski and grafting it into the bottom of a flat-bottom boat. The pics are thorough.

            No discussion I recall of slow speed handling, but there is a tendency to take advantage of the very shallow draft and this exposes the powerplant to picking up rocks, mud, etc from the bottom, so you need to install a protective grate. This vulnerability really offsets the 'gain' of a great looking inboard powerplant installation with no exposed propeller to maintain.

            Also, efficiency stinks, the result is a gas hog when compared to the same boat with a modest outboard.

            So I concluded that a really fun project would result in a not so fun boat. Now, that's MY analysis of the tradeoffs. Your conclusion may vary from mine that's just fine.

            Don

            --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "highoveryou" <highoveryou@...> wrote:
            > Even had another idea, but probably just that. How about the running gear from a jet ski? Sure would reduce the draft even further, and make a cleaner transom for a traditional look. Although that'd probably kill any slow speed handling!
            >
            > Jeff
          • Brian Anderson
            There was a WoodenBoat Magazine cover story Oct. 2007 where a guy had built a 26 foot strip-built lobster boat (it wasn t a working boat) and then after
            Message 5 of 12 , Apr 14, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              There was a WoodenBoat Magazine cover story Oct. 2007 where a guy had built a 26 foot strip-built "lobster" boat (it wasn't a working boat) and then after pricing various power options decide to buy a big jet ski and mounted that on the back of the boat. They were pretty pleased with the results. Apparently they paid $9,000 for the three-man jet ski, and figured powering the boat would normally have run about $30,000. It certainly looked like a nice job.

              They said the boat weighed just 2,000 pounds and it burned 3-4 gallons an hour at 18-20 knots.

              Cheers, Brian

              --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > I've looked pretty hard at this. The Duckworks site has a link to an old do it yourself site about cutting up a jet ski and grafting it into the bottom of a flat-bottom boat. The pics are thorough.
              >
              > No discussion I recall of slow speed handling, but there is a tendency to take advantage of the very shallow draft and this exposes the powerplant to picking up rocks, mud, etc from the bottom, so you need to install a protective grate. This vulnerability really offsets the 'gain' of a great looking inboard powerplant installation with no exposed propeller to maintain.
              >
              > Also, efficiency stinks, the result is a gas hog when compared to the same boat with a modest outboard.
              >
              > So I concluded that a really fun project would result in a not so fun boat. Now, that's MY analysis of the tradeoffs. Your conclusion may vary from mine that's just fine.
              >
              > Don
              >
              > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "highoveryou" <highoveryou@> wrote:
              > > Even had another idea, but probably just that. How about the running gear from a jet ski? Sure would reduce the draft even further, and make a cleaner transom for a traditional look. Although that'd probably kill any slow speed handling!
              > >
              > > Jeff
              >
            • Bruce Hallman
              ... $9,000 is still a lot. There is an inboard powered flat skiff the size of Sneakeasy in Bolger s design list, the name escapes me at the moment. For
              Message 6 of 12 , Apr 14, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                >back of the boat. They were pretty pleased with the results. Apparently they paid $9,000 for the three-man jet ski, and >figured powering the boat would normally have run about $30,000. It certainly looked like a nice job.

                $9,000 is still a lot. There is an inboard powered flat skiff the
                size of Sneakeasy in Bolger's design list, the name escapes me at the
                moment.

                For 'cheapo' power, I favor the concept of "Bonefish" which takes one
                of those horizontal shaft gasoline engines selling for $300 and
                connects it to an old fashion drive shaft, stuffing box and propeller
                using a rubber belt. You could power a Sneakeasy with perhaps $500 of
                hardware this way.

                http://www.google.com/products?q=Horizontal+Shaft+Gas+Engine&hl=en
              • Pierce Nichols
                ... You can find used jetskis pretty cheap. I see a bunch of sub $1000 jetskis on Seattle Craigslist right now, for instance. -p
                Message 7 of 12 , Apr 14, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Bruce Hallman <bruce@...> wrote:
                  >>back of the boat. They were pretty pleased with the results. Apparently they paid $9,000 for the three-man jet ski, and >figured powering the boat would normally have run about $30,000. It certainly looked like a nice job.
                  >
                  > $9,000 is still a lot.  There is an inboard powered flat skiff the
                  > size of Sneakeasy in Bolger's design list, the name escapes me at the
                  > moment.

                  You can find used jetskis pretty cheap. I see a bunch of sub $1000
                  jetskis on Seattle Craigslist right now, for instance.

                  -p
                • Bruce Hallman
                  ... I agree you can. It is a personal preference sort of thing. Personally, with an retro-look kind of boat like Sneakeasy, I think it makes sense to use an
                  Message 8 of 12 , Apr 14, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    > You can find used jetskis pretty cheap. I see a bunch of sub $1000
                    > jetskis on Seattle Craigslist right now, for instance.
                    >
                    > -p


                    I agree you can. It is a personal preference sort of thing.
                    Personally, with an retro-look kind of boat like Sneakeasy, I think it
                    makes sense to use an old fashion style drive shaft with propeller.
                    As to the engine, if you are really on a budget, those $300 horizontal
                    shaft gasoline engines are really cheap. Though, as long as we are
                    dreaming, the ideal 'old school' engine to drive a boat like this
                    might be a one-banger low RPM 'Listeroids' diesels. These have that
                    great, hypnotic, low frequency "sound" that would make cruising a
                    pleasure. Both the gasoline engine, and the jet ski engine, would
                    drive me nuts with their high frequency drone.

                    http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/001011.php

                    http://www.utterpower.com/listeroi.htm

                    I think Listeroid engines can be bought for as cheap as $600.

                    Plus, you can burn recycled french fry oil.
                  • Brian Anderson
                    I was looking for something else, but noticed that the article I mentioned in the Oct. 2007 Woodenboat, about the jet-ski powered lobsteryacht is online (with
                    Message 9 of 12 , Apr 17, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I was looking for something else, but noticed that the article I mentioned in the Oct. 2007 Woodenboat, about the jet-ski powered lobsteryacht is online (with the rest of the issue and several other issues to boot...) if anybody is intersted.

                      http://woodenboat.com/wbmag/digital_issue.html

                      Cheers, Brian


                      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Anderson" <bawrytr@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > There was a WoodenBoat Magazine cover story Oct. 2007 where a guy had built a 26 foot strip-built "lobster" boat (it wasn't a working boat) and then after pricing various power options decide to buy a big jet ski and mounted that on the back of the boat. They were pretty pleased with the results. Apparently they paid $9,000 for the three-man jet ski, and figured powering the boat would normally have run about $30,000. It certainly looked like a nice job.
                      >
                      > They said the boat weighed just 2,000 pounds and it burned 3-4 gallons an hour at 18-20 knots.
                      >
                      > Cheers, Brian
                      >
                      > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > I've looked pretty hard at this. The Duckworks site has a link to an old do it yourself site about cutting up a jet ski and grafting it into the bottom of a flat-bottom boat. The pics are thorough.
                      > >
                      > > No discussion I recall of slow speed handling, but there is a tendency to take advantage of the very shallow draft and this exposes the powerplant to picking up rocks, mud, etc from the bottom, so you need to install a protective grate. This vulnerability really offsets the 'gain' of a great looking inboard powerplant installation with no exposed propeller to maintain.
                      > >
                      > > Also, efficiency stinks, the result is a gas hog when compared to the same boat with a modest outboard.
                      > >
                      > > So I concluded that a really fun project would result in a not so fun boat. Now, that's MY analysis of the tradeoffs. Your conclusion may vary from mine that's just fine.
                      > >
                      > > Don
                      > >
                      > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "highoveryou" <highoveryou@> wrote:
                      > > > Even had another idea, but probably just that. How about the running gear from a jet ski? Sure would reduce the draft even further, and make a cleaner transom for a traditional look. Although that'd probably kill any slow speed handling!
                      > > >
                      > > > Jeff
                      > >
                      >
                    • Bryant Owen
                      I keep wondering when someone was going to bring up Steve Bosquette s Baby Sneakeasy but alas. Here s the duckworks link
                      Message 10 of 12 , Apr 17, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I keep wondering when someone was going to bring up Steve Bosquette's Baby Sneakeasy but alas. Here's the duckworks link

                        http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/06/projects/sneakeasy/index.htm

                        This is the same boat Steve brought to the 2005 Kingston Messabout

                        http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/06/gatherings/kingston/index.htm

                        Bryant

                        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Anderson" <bawrytr@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I was looking for something else, but noticed that the article I mentioned in the Oct. 2007 Woodenboat, about the jet-ski powered lobsteryacht is online (with the rest of the issue and several other issues to boot...) if anybody is intersted.
                        >
                        > http://woodenboat.com/wbmag/digital_issue.html
                        >
                        > Cheers, Brian
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Anderson" <bawrytr@> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > There was a WoodenBoat Magazine cover story Oct. 2007 where a guy had built a 26 foot strip-built "lobster" boat (it wasn't a working boat) and then after pricing various power options decide to buy a big jet ski and mounted that on the back of the boat. They were pretty pleased with the results. Apparently they paid $9,000 for the three-man jet ski, and figured powering the boat would normally have run about $30,000. It certainly looked like a nice job.
                        > >
                        > > They said the boat weighed just 2,000 pounds and it burned 3-4 gallons an hour at 18-20 knots.
                        > >
                        > > Cheers, Brian
                        > >
                        > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > I've looked pretty hard at this. The Duckworks site has a link to an old do it yourself site about cutting up a jet ski and grafting it into the bottom of a flat-bottom boat. The pics are thorough.
                        > > >
                        > > > No discussion I recall of slow speed handling, but there is a tendency to take advantage of the very shallow draft and this exposes the powerplant to picking up rocks, mud, etc from the bottom, so you need to install a protective grate. This vulnerability really offsets the 'gain' of a great looking inboard powerplant installation with no exposed propeller to maintain.
                        > > >
                        > > > Also, efficiency stinks, the result is a gas hog when compared to the same boat with a modest outboard.
                        > > >
                        > > > So I concluded that a really fun project would result in a not so fun boat. Now, that's MY analysis of the tradeoffs. Your conclusion may vary from mine that's just fine.
                        > > >
                        > > > Don
                        > > >
                        > > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "highoveryou" <highoveryou@> wrote:
                        > > > > Even had another idea, but probably just that. How about the running gear from a jet ski? Sure would reduce the draft even further, and make a cleaner transom for a traditional look. Although that'd probably kill any slow speed handling!
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Jeff
                        > > >
                        > >
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.