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

Re: NJ Sneakeasy...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.