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

Re: [bolger] Re: Selling my light schooner

Expand Messages
  • Leander Harding
    The sails have been great. We have really only sailed the schooner four years about two to three weeks each summer and the very occasional day outing
    Message 1 of 13 , Sep 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      The sails have been great. We have really only sailed the schooner four years about two to three weeks each summer and the very occasional day outing otherwise. The last year we sailed we were in a race on East Grand Lake in Northern Maine. I don't know what the wind went up to but most of the small boats capsized and a Cal 20 (smallest one not sure of the number) that had the companionway boards out took water over the stern going down wind and swamped. Had to be towed to the beach and bailed out. Our sails held out fine. We had added a Blue Polytarp Staysail to group and had everything up at the beginning and got down to mizzen and jib at the end. We beat everything down wind. Were leading the monohulls up wind and missed a tack with our pick up crew.We still finished in just about the middle of the boats that made it to the finish line. I was amazed that the polytarp took that beating. I just unrolled everthing the other day and the sails are in good shape and do not appear to be streched out of shape yet. If I don't sell it before winter I will try to use them as patterns to cut sails out of the sails Al gave me off his cutter when he refitted.

      You did a great job designing the sails and leading me through the construction process. Including your fine hand with the sewing machine.

      Leander+


      From: pvanderwaart <pvanderwaart@...>
      To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 2:43:04 PM
      Subject: [bolger] Re: Selling my light schooner

       

      > I have a Bolger Folding Schooner for sale as well.

      How are the sails?

      FWIW, there are still some photos of your boat under construction and from the day of her first sail hanging around the files section:

      http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/bolger/ files/Folding% 20Schooner/

      Peter


    • Joe Stromski
      Have any Tennessee s been built using the box cutwater hull shown as optional for the Sneakeasy? Are plans available for this possible variation? I see
      Message 2 of 13 , Sep 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Have any Tennessee's been built using the "box cutwater" hull shown as
        optional for the Sneakeasy? Are plans available for this possible
        variation? I see Mundoo Express plans for sale at
        http://www.duckflatwoodenboats.com/mainpages/mundoo.php which seems to
        be a pretty direct derivative of either the Tennessee or Idaho, using
        that design. The price of $900 Au dollars (which works out to over $750
        US!!) will certainly deter me from purchasing those plans. The Tennessee
        is on my short list of "boats I want", but the flat-bottom design would
        keep me off Lake Michigan on anything but the nicest days. I'm not even
        sure that adding a box cutwater would accomplish that goal; any opinions
        on that?
        Regards to all,
        Joe
      • daschultz2000
        The simple physics of the problem dictate the scantlings and shape. You ll be money and time ahead buying plans to do what you want. So it sounds like you
        Message 3 of 13 , Sep 4, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          The simple physics of the problem dictate the scantlings and shape. You'll be money and time ahead buying plans to do what you want. So it sounds like you are going the right way, seeking a proven design.

          With the Great Lakes as part of the boat's mission, in my very inexpert opinion, it would be better to go to Topaz or Robin Jean to get the hull for the waters you want cruise, and adapt the cabin structure you wish to have, than to modify Tenn' to approach the strength, and ride characteristics of these more capable hull designs.

          Both Topaz and Robin Jean hulls are intended to take a variety of cabins. In particular, RJ built to PB&F's specs, would take a beating, including getting holed or swamped, and still bring you home.

          The Aussie derivations are still intended for protected waters. PB&F and others have misgivings about the CG and windage effects of the cabin structure they have added above the simple skiff hull.

          There is a Tenn named Esther Mae (sp?) that is in the pics somewhere here in the Bolger groups. The owner is/has needed to redo the bottom, thickening it because of oil canning, just for river cruising, no Great Lakes stuff. Fact is Bolger could get things really a bit to light at times in otherwise substantial looking boats.

          Watch for the same thing from Jim Michalak, though I think he provides very fair warning regarding what his designs are intended to handle. Recently he rebuilt the bottom of his own prototype AF-4. He went to a thicker bottom than his plans called for! Hmmmmmmm.

          That said, you could double up the bottom thickness, and the bulkhead thickness, plus add a Work/Clam Skiff style 'shoe' (see Payson's Instant Boats site) to get the strength, and endure the ride. Devlin is big on beefy bulkheads, saying they contribute significantly to overall rigidity and even make construction easier because of the stiffness they add.

          This advice is worth just whatcha paid for it.

          Don Schultz

          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Joe Stromski <j.stromski@...> wrote:
          >
          > Have any Tennessee's been built using the "box cutwater" hull shown as
          > optional for the Sneak........
        • Joe Stromski
          Oh geez, I wasn t aware of the Topaz design. The world really needs a comprehensive online catalog of Phil s boats...That design has really got my juices
          Message 4 of 13 , Sep 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Oh geez, I wasn't aware of the Topaz design. The world really needs a
            comprehensive online catalog of Phil's boats...That design has really
            got my juices flowing! My intended uses are taking out a bunch of
            friends on day trips, or some overnight cruises with the wife, on inland
            lakes and rivers in Wisconsin and other areas, with possibly a foray
            into the Big Lake on occasion. Topaz strikes me as being near ideal, and
            I loooove the looks...I'm definitely going to need to purchase the plans!
            Coincidentally enough, I just completed a Michalak AF4, and the plans
            have been revised to specify 1/2" for the bottom, as opposed to the
            original 3/8". I used 1/2" MDO, with a layer of light cloth on the
            outside for abrasion resistance and it seems darn near bullet-proof. Its
            a really well thought out design overall, and I'm enjoying the heck out
            of it.
            Regards,
            Joe

            daschultz2000 wrote:
            >
            >
            > The simple physics of the problem dictate the scantlings and shape.
            > You'll be money and time ahead buying plans to do what you want. So it
            > sounds like you are going the right way, seeking a proven design.
            >
            > With the Great Lakes as part of the boat's mission, in my very
            > inexpert opinion, it would be better to go to Topaz or Robin Jean to
            > get the hull for the waters you want cruise, and adapt the cabin
            > structure you wish to have, than to modify Tenn' to approach the
            > strength, and ride characteristics of these more capable hull designs.
            >
            > Both Topaz and Robin Jean hulls are intended to take a variety of
            > cabins. In particular, RJ built to PB&F's specs, would take a beating,
            > including getting holed or swamped, and still bring you home.
            >
            > The Aussie derivations are still intended for protected waters. PB&F
            > and others have misgivings about the CG and windage effects of the
            > cabin structure they have added above the simple skiff hull.
            >
            > There is a Tenn named Esther Mae (sp?) that is in the pics somewhere
            > here in the Bolger groups. The owner is/has needed to redo the bottom,
            > thickening it because of oil canning, just for river cruising, no
            > Great Lakes stuff. Fact is Bolger could get things really a bit to
            > light at times in otherwise substantial looking boats.
            >
            > Watch for the same thing from Jim Michalak, though I think he provides
            > very fair warning regarding what his designs are intended to handle.
            > Recently he rebuilt the bottom of his own prototype AF-4. He went to a
            > thicker bottom than his plans called for! Hmmmmmmm.
            >
            > That said, you could double up the bottom thickness, and the bulkhead
            > thickness, plus add a Work/Clam Skiff style 'shoe' (see Payson's
            > Instant Boats site) to get the strength, and endure the ride. Devlin
            > is big on beefy bulkheads, saying they contribute significantly to
            > overall rigidity and even make construction easier because of the
            > stiffness they add.
            >
            > This advice is worth just whatcha paid for it.
            >
            > Don Schultz
            >
            > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>, Joe
            > Stromski <j.stromski@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Have any Tennessee's been built using the "box cutwater" hull shown as
            > > optional for the Sneak........
            >
            >
          • Joe Stromski
            I m very interested in building a Topaz. I m seeking general info on the design. A previous thread mentioned it being available with a variety of different
            Message 5 of 13 , Sep 6, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm very interested in building a Topaz. I'm seeking general info on the
              design. A previous thread mentioned it being available with a variety of
              different cabin treatments. My research has led me to Bruce Hallmann's
              Flickr pages, featuring the "Topaz Spyder", and I also see JourneyBoats
              online with the totally enclosed cabin version. Are these the two main
              variants? What about a bill of materials for the build? Does anyone know
              the cost of plans? Any other general info or opinions on the design?
              Thanks!
              Joe
            • Chris Crandall
              ... DS: You might have mixed things up there. Jim replaced a bottom section in the stern hull due to rot. The patch might have been extra thick, but the rest
              Message 6 of 13 , Sep 6, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                > Watch for the same thing from Jim Michalak, though I think he
                > provides very fair warning regarding what his designs are intended to
                > handle. Recently he rebuilt the bottom of his own prototype AF-4.
                > He went to a thicker bottom than his plans called for! Hmmmmmmm.

                DS: You might have mixed things up there. Jim replaced a bottom section
                in the stern hull due to rot. The patch might have been extra thick, but
                the rest of the bottom remained the same.
              • daschultz2000
                Nope. Swing and a miss Chris. I m right. He did the whole bottom, and documented it in his May and June 2008 blog. A brief scan of the text reminded me that
                Message 7 of 13 , Sep 7, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  Nope. Swing and a miss Chris. I'm right. He did the whole bottom, and documented it in his May and June 2008 blog. A brief scan of the text reminded me that although the plans now show 1/2" ply, he used 5/8" in his rebuild, replacing the 3/8" ply.

                  http://www.jimsboats.com/1may08.htm#New%20AF4%20Bottom%201

                  http://home.earthlink.net/~je3mchlk/data/#AF4%20Bottom%202


                  Don Schultz ( who was right for once. ;-D )

                  --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Chris Crandall <crandall@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Watch for the same thing from Jim Michalak, though I think he
                  > > provides very fair warning regarding what his designs are intended to
                  > > handle. Recently he rebuilt the bottom of his own prototype AF-4.
                  > > He went to a thicker bottom than his plans called for! Hmmmmmmm.
                  >
                  > DS: You might have mixed things up there. Jim replaced a bottom section
                  > in the stern hull due to rot. The patch might have been extra thick, but
                  > the rest of the bottom remained the same.
                  >
                • Tracy Roberts
                  From what I read he did replace the bottom, stem to stern but he missed on the 5/8 Ply and went to 1/2 ply due to the Exposure 1 / Exterior issue. Reading
                  Message 8 of 13 , Sep 7, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    From what I read he did replace the bottom, stem to stern but he missed on the 5/8" Ply and went to 1/2" ply due to the "Exposure 1"/"Exterior" issue.  Reading that his Plywood supply did not have 5/8" Exterior on hand so he opted to go with 1/2".  Not that it's a real issue that I can see. though.



                    daschultz2000 wrote:
                     


                    Nope. Swing and a miss Chris. I'm right. He did the whole bottom, and documented it in his May and June 2008 blog. A brief scan of the text reminded me that although the plans now show 1/2" ply, he used 5/8" in his rebuild, replacing the 3/8" ply.

                    http://www.jimsboat s.com/1may08. htm#New%20AF4% 20Bottom% 201

                    http://home. earthlink. net/~je3mchlk/ data/#AF4% 20Bottom% 202

                    Don Schultz ( who was right for once. ;-D )

                    --- In bolger@yahoogroups. com, Chris Crandall <crandall@.. .> wrote:
                    >
                    > > Watch for the same thing from Jim Michalak, though I think he
                    > > provides very fair warning regarding what his designs are intended to
                    > > handle. Recently he rebuilt the bottom of his own prototype AF-4.
                    > > He went to a thicker bottom than his plans called for! Hmmmmmmm.
                    >
                    > DS: You might have mixed things up there. Jim replaced a bottom section
                    > in the stern hull due to rot. The patch might have been extra thick, but
                    > the rest of the bottom remained the same.
                    >

                  • chodges31711
                    I m building a rather highly modified Idaho with a Clam Skiff bottom. The bottom is two layers of 1/2 MDO with three more layers 16 wide for the shoe. It is
                    Message 9 of 13 , Sep 11, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I'm building a rather highly modified Idaho with a Clam Skiff bottom. The bottom is two layers of 1/2" MDO with three more layers 16" wide for the shoe. It is very stout.

                      I say highly modified because 4 cycle outboards are expensive and I had a junked Tennant sweeper on hand. It had a 33hp Kubota diesel with hydraulic drive. So the front 2/3's of my boat is Idaho and the rear 1/3 is Atkin Shoals Runner for the inboard installation. The flat bottom transition is more like Atkin Sand Piper. I retained the hydraulic drive and stretched the beam from 5' to 6' ( The Kubota and hydraulics being about 400 lbs. plus I needed the room to walk around it). AutoCad was a big help.
                      I have the hull completed and turned over. Engine installation is progressing.

                      Charles


                      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz2000" <daschultz8275@...> wrote
                      >
                      > That said, you could double up the bottom thickness, and the bulkhead thickness, plus add a Work/Clam Skiff style 'shoe' (see Payson's Instant Boats site) to get the strength, and endure the ride. Devlin is big on beefy bulkheads, saying they contribute significantly to overall rigidity and even make construction easier because of the stiffness they add.
                      >
                      > This advice is worth just whatcha paid for it.
                      >
                      > Don Schultz
                      >
                      > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Joe Stromski <j.stromski@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Have any Tennessee's been built using the "box cutwater" hull shown as
                      > > optional for the Sneak........
                      >
                    • rowerwet
                      from what I recall from MAIB, one of the commercial fishing boat designs he was working on (the smaller one) is based on the topaz hull, I m not sure if it is
                      Message 10 of 13 , Sep 12, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        from what I recall from MAIB, one of the commercial fishing boat designs he was working on (the smaller one) is based on the topaz hull, I'm not sure if it is the one that was built and launched in Gloucester recently, but I think so.
                        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Joe Stromski <j.stromski@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I'm very interested in building a Topaz. I'm seeking general info on the
                        > design. A previous thread mentioned it being available with a variety of
                        > different cabin treatments. My research has led me to Bruce Hallmann's
                        > Flickr pages, featuring the "Topaz Spyder", and I also see JourneyBoats
                        > online with the totally enclosed cabin version. Are these the two main
                        > variants? What about a bill of materials for the build? Does anyone know
                        > the cost of plans? Any other general info or opinions on the design?
                        > Thanks!
                        > Joe
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.