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

Re: NJ Sneakeasy...

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