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

Re: [bolger] Re: NJ Sneakeasy...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.