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

34' Economy Seagoing Cruiser - not even one image on web! (30 Odd Boats)

Expand Messages
  • lucas c
    Hello, group people Currently reading about the bolger Eek! concept, i read lots of discussion and toughts on web, but i can´t find any image of the 34
    Message 1 of 13 , Jun 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello, group people

      Currently reading about the bolger Eek! concept, i read lots of discussion and toughts on web, but i can´t find any image of the 34' Proposed Economy Seagoing Cruiser. Asks if any good soul here on group could scan (low-res even)the sketch of this boat on 30 Odd Boats chapter...

      This is much for understanding the development of this rather unsucesfull concept... but all this talk on web about the 34' makes me itches of curiosity.


      Thank you, dudes!
    • daschultz8275@sbcglobal.net
      ... In this group there have been several threads about Eeek! At least one about a scaled up version of Eeek! that was still for one person. You can find pics
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "lucas c" <lucasac78@...> wrote:
        >
        > This is much for understanding the development of this rather >unsucesfull concept... but all this talk on web about the 34' makes me >itches of curiosity.


        In this group there have been several threads about Eeek! At least one about a scaled up version of Eeek! that was still for one person. You can find pics of a ~24 foot version, Sandy Bottoms? I don't think anybody built a 34'.

        Reading the original essay, it seems the experiment concerned the straight run of the bottom. The essay started out with the mission of determining the value of the bottom shape, but once built, the rest of the essay addressed only Eeek!'s handling and value as it was without addressing the original mission.

        Given that later Bolger designs continued to show conventional rocker, I conclude Bolger didn't see the hull shape as worthwhile. Certainly the AS series along with Martha Jane covers the capability of the 34' Economy...
      • c.ruzer
        Well, he said Eeek! was not much of a boat. But then he also kept it a while and used it a bit... Anhinga was #484 out of what? 600+? So what was the problem
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 8, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, he said Eeek! was not much of a boat. But then he also kept it a while and used it a bit... Anhinga was #484 out of what? 600+?

          So what was the problem for ESC then? Perhaps too much ballast required to stiffen her up... so too much draft defeating the original idea of same displacement on less immersed cross-section, ie. less draft? Noone asked for it to be worked up? (wish I'd known about it back then) Too busy? Worked it out satisfactorily, and, that done, no more challenge so moved on? Just got bored with it? Business caution after the naively wet Anhinga builder flipped out? eg. upset boat, upset plans? He was always cautious about the economics of largish sharpies... PCB said once that it made no sense to build one larger than Otter.



          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "daschultz8275@..." <daschultz8275@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "lucas c" <lucasac78@> wrote:
          > >
          > > This is much for understanding the development of this rather >unsucesfull concept... but all this talk on web about the 34' makes me >itches of curiosity.
          >
          >
          > In this group there have been several threads about Eeek! At least one about a scaled up version of Eeek! that was still for one person. You can find pics of a ~24 foot version, Sandy Bottoms? I don't think anybody built a 34'.
          >
          > Reading the original essay, it seems the experiment concerned the straight run of the bottom. The essay started out with the mission of determining the value of the bottom shape, but once built, the rest of the essay addressed only Eeek!'s handling and value as it was without addressing the original mission.
          >
          > Given that later Bolger designs continued to show conventional rocker, I conclude Bolger didn't see the hull shape as worthwhile. Certainly the AS series along with Martha Jane covers the capability of the 34' Economy...
          >
        • Mark Albanese
          That was not the idea. I had the notion that a pointed stern without rocker would allow more ballast to be carried without increasing the size of the
          Message 4 of 13 , Jun 8, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            That was not the idea. "I had the notion that a pointed stern without rocker would allow more ballast to be carried without increasing the size of the midsection." Not the same as less draft. 

            Though larger over all, LM2 is an interesting contrast. I make the ballast required for him at 1900 of a total displacement of 11,000 pounds, about a 5:1 ratio that's a lot less than what you've shown the Eeek! shaped boats to need.   

             


            On Jun 8, 2012, at 7:47 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
             

            ... so too much draft defeating the original idea of same displacement on less immersed cross-section, ie. less draft? 

          • c.ruzer
            Au contraire!
            Message 5 of 13 , Jun 13, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Au contraire!

              --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
              >
              > That was not the idea. "I had the notion that a pointed stern without
              > rocker would allow more ballast to be carried without increasing the
              > size of the midsection." Not the same as less draft.
              >
              > Though larger over all, LM2 is an interesting contrast. I make the
              > ballast required for him at 1900 of a total displacement of 11,000
              > pounds, about a 5:1 ratio that's a lot less than what you've shown
              > the Eeek! shaped boats to need.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > On Jun 8, 2012, at 7:47 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
              > > ... so too much draft defeating the original idea of same
              > > displacement on less immersed cross-section, ie. less draft?
              >
            • Mark Albanese
              Standing by paragraph one pending more detailed objection. My take on the LM2 ballast was definitely wrong. Further study shows 860 kg each, port and
              Message 6 of 13 , Jun 13, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Standing by paragraph one pending more detailed objection.

                My take on the LM2 ballast was definitely wrong. Further study shows 860 kg each, port and starboard. That's 3000#, just as Bob clarified,  ton and a half of some kind. Against the on her lines displacement of  4.81M3 ( 11,000 pounds ) not heavily ballasted at all.
                 
                On Jun 13, 2012, at 8:02 PM, c.ruzer wrote:
                 


                Au contraire!

                --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
                >
                > That was not the idea. "I had the notion that a pointed stern without
                > rocker would allow more ballast to be carried without increasing the
                > size of the midsection." Not the same as less draft.
                >
                > Though larger over all, LM2 is an interesting contrast. I make the
                > ballast required for him at 1900 of a total displacement of 11,000
                > pounds, about a 5:1 ratio that's a lot less than what you've shown
                > the Eeek! shaped boats to need.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > On Jun 8, 2012, at 7:47 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
                > > ... so too much draft defeating the original idea of same
                > > displacement on less immersed cross-section, ie. less draft?
                >


              • c.ruzer
                En garde! ... Au contraire, whatever else could the idea possibly be other than what it is said to be as it is stated? C est une très bonne idée! ...
                Message 7 of 13 , Jun 13, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  En garde!

                  --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
                  > That was not the idea. "I had the notion that a pointed stern
                  > without rocker would allow more ballast to be carried without
                  > increasing the size of the midsection."

                  Au contraire, whatever else could the idea possibly be other than what it is said to be as it is stated? C'est une très bonne idée!


                  > Not the same as less draft.

                  Methinks that's mistaken. Bolger being viscerally joined to shoal draft not withstanding, what acceptable alternative conception is there?


                  Allez, c'est parti!


                  > Though larger over all, LM2 is an interesting contrast. I make the
                  > ballast required for him at 1900 of a total displacement of 11,000
                  > pounds, about a 5:1 ratio that's a lot less than what you've shown
                  > the Eeek! shaped boats to need.

                  LM2 a 5:1 stiffness ratio? Not at all!

                  LM2 @ 10604lbs displacement : 2998lbs ballast = 3.53:1
                  AS29 @ 7300lbs displacement : 2000lbs ballast = 3.65:1
                  AS19 @ 2100lbs displacement : 500lbs ballast = 4.20:1
                  Eeek!lt @ 280lbs displacement : 40lbs ballast = 7.00:1
                  Eeek! @ 280lbs displacement : 75lbs ballast = 3.73:1
                  Anhinga @ 2400lbs displacement : 435lbs ballast = 5.51:1
                  ESC lt @ 8300lbs displacement :(1200lbs?ballast) = ??????
                  ESC @ 8300lbs displacement :(2240lbs?ballast) = ??????


                  Rather it's ballast versus draft on beam for length on displacement for more ballast on similar draft,

                  LM2 @ 94.8" beam : 12" draft = 7.90:1
                  AS29 @ 94.0" beam : 13" draft = 7.23:1
                  AS19 @ 66.0" beam : 8" draft = 8.25:1
                  Eeek! @ 24.0" beam : 4" draft = 6.00:1
                  Anhinga @ 60.0" beam : 7" draft = 8.57:1
                  ESC @ 78.0" beam : 13.5" draft = 5.78:1

                  LM2 @ 452.4" LOA : 94.8" beam = 4.77:1
                  AS29 @ 354.0" LOA : 94.0" beam = 3.76:1
                  AS19 @ 234.0" LOA : 66.0" beam = 3.54:1
                  Eeek! @ 138.0" LOA : 24.0" beam = 5.75:1
                  Anhinga @ 279.0" LOA : 60.0" beam = 4.65:1
                  ESC @ 414.0" LOA : 78.0" beam = 5.30:1

                  the corollary being for similar displacement on less draft. Altered field contours and markings with same rules: a different game.

                  Voilà.



                  > On Jun 8, 2012, at 7:47 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
                  > > ... so too much draft defeating the original idea of same
                  > > displacement on less immersed cross-section, ie. less draft?
                • Mark Albanese
                  ... That must mean you re pulling it together.
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jun 13, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    >
                    > En garde!
                    >
                    > ---
                    >
                    That must mean you're pulling it together.
                  • Mark Albanese
                    Et tu Brute? Alternatives for changing the midsection include making the boat wider or making the belly deeper. The AS boats are all a little wider
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jun 14, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Et tu Brute?

                      Alternatives for changing the midsection include making the boat wider or making the belly deeper. The AS boats are all a little wider proportionately than the ESC line and with deeper bellies. Making any boat wider will reduce draft. The deeper the belly, the more we'll have to pile in the weight to keep it at the same underbody draft, if draft's what we're concerned with. That would have made a different boat entirely.

                      So enough uniquely conceived volume was added aft to accept the weight. The midsection didn't change.

                      Anhinga @ 2400lbs displacement : 435lbs ballast = 5.51:1

                      I think it would be hard to build  Anhinga to plan that weighs more than 750 pounds empty. The 435# water = 2.72, about 30% ballast for the bare boat, almost as much as an AS, but in a narrower one perhaps not quite enough for the open sea. 

                      You once had a scheme for adding ballast to Anhinga, on fins if IIRC, and / or for packing in up to 1000# of gear. I agreed the boat might be much more predictable at 2400# than with an afternoon's sail appropriate displacement of 1600# after a look at these.



                      On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:32 PM, c.ruzer wrote:

                       



                      En garde!

                      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:
                      > That was not the idea. "I had the notion that a pointed stern
                      > without rocker would allow more ballast to be carried without
                      > increasing the size of the midsection."

                      Au contraire, whatever else could the idea possibly be other than what it is said to be as it is stated? C'est une très bonne idée!

                      > Not the same as less draft.

                      Methinks that's mistaken. Bolger being viscerally joined to shoal draft not withstanding, what acceptable alternative conception is there?

                      Allez, c'est parti!


                      > Though larger over all, LM2 is an interesting contrast. I make the
                      > ballast required for him at 1900 of a total displacement of 11,000
                      > pounds, about a 5:1 ratio that's a lot less than what you've shown
                      > the Eeek! shaped boats to need.

                      LM2 a 5:1 stiffness ratio? Not at all!

                      LM2 @ 10604lbs displacement : 2998lbs ballast = 3.53:1
                      AS29 @ 7300lbs displacement : 2000lbs ballast = 3.65:1
                      AS19 @ 2100lbs displacement : 500lbs ballast = 4.20:1
                      Eeek!lt @ 280lbs displacement : 40lbs ballast = 7.00:1
                      Eeek! @ 280lbs displacement : 75lbs ballast = 3.73:1
                      Anhinga @ 2400lbs displacement : 435lbs ballast = 5.51:1
                      ESC lt @ 8300lbs displacement :(1200lbs?ballast) = ??????
                      ESC @ 8300lbs displacement :(2240lbs?ballast) = ??????


                      Rather it's ballast versus draft on beam for length on displacement for more ballast on similar draft,

                      LM2 @ 94.8" beam : 12" draft = 7.90:1
                      AS29 @ 94.0" beam : 13" draft = 7.23:1
                      AS19 @ 66.0" beam : 8" draft = 8.25:1
                      Eeek! @ 24.0" beam : 4" draft = 6.00:1
                      Anhinga @ 60.0" beam : 7" draft = 8.57:1
                      ESC @ 78.0" beam : 13.5" draft = 5.78:1

                      LM2 @ 452.4" LOA : 94.8" beam = 4.77:1
                      AS29 @ 354.0" LOA : 94.0" beam = 3.76:1
                      AS19 @ 234.0" LOA : 66.0" beam = 3.54:1
                      Eeek! @ 138.0" LOA : 24.0" beam = 5.75:1
                      Anhinga @ 279.0" LOA : 60.0" beam = 4.65:1
                      ESC @ 414.0" LOA : 78.0" beam = 5.30:1

                      the corollary being for similar displacement on less draft. Altered field contours and markings with same rules: a different game.

                      Voilà.

                      > On Jun 8, 2012, at 7:47 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
                      > > ... so too much draft defeating the original idea of same
                      > > displacement on less immersed cross-section, ie. less draft?


                    • c.ruzer
                      ... Qu est-ce que c est? ... Not both together? ... Not so, for example, Anhinga is proportionally widest for length and shallowest for both beam and length,
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jun 14, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:

                        > Et tu Brute?

                        Qu'est-ce que c'est?


                        > Alternatives for changing the midsection include making the boat
                        > wider or making the belly deeper.

                        Not both together?


                        > The AS boats are all a little wider proportionately than the ESC
                        > line

                        Not so, for example, Anhinga is proportionally widest for length and shallowest for both beam and length,


                        > and with deeper bellies.

                        but ESC is deepest in absolute terms whilst far from heaviest.

                        LM2 @ 10604lbs displacement : 2998lbs ballast = 3.53:1
                        AS29 @ 7300lbs displacement : 2000lbs ballast = 3.65:1
                        AS19 @ 2100lbs displacement : 500lbs ballast = 4.20:1
                        Eeek!lt @ 280lbs displacement : 40lbs ballast = 7.00:1
                        Eeek! @ 280lbs displacement : 75lbs ballast = 3.73:1
                        Anhinga @ 2400lbs displacement : 435lbs ballast = 5.51:1
                        ESC lt @ 8300lbs displacement :(1200lbs?ballast) = ??????
                        ESC @ 8300lbs displacement :(2240lbs?ballast) = ??????

                        LM2 @ 94.8" beam : 12" draft = 7.90:1
                        AS29 @ 94.0" beam : 13" draft = 7.23:1
                        AS19 @ 66.0" beam : 8" draft = 8.25:1
                        Eeek! @ 24.0" beam : 4" draft = 6.00:1
                        Anhinga @ 60.0" beam : 7" draft = 8.57:1
                        ESC @ 78.0" beam : 13.5" draft = 5.78:1

                        LM2 @ 452.4" LOA : 94.8" beam = 4.77:1
                        AS29 @ 354.0" LOA : 94.0" beam = 3.76:1
                        AS19 @ 234.0" LOA : 66.0" beam = 3.54:1
                        Eeek! @ 138.0" LOA : 24.0" beam = 5.75:1
                        Anhinga @ 279.0" LOA : 60.0" beam = 4.65:1
                        ESC @ 414.0" LOA : 78.0" beam = 5.30:1

                        LM2 @ 452.4" LOA : 12.0" draft = 37.70:1
                        AS29 @ 354.0" LOA : 13.0" draft = 27.23:1
                        AS19 @ 234.0" LOA : 8.0" draft = 29.25:1
                        Eeek! @ 138.0" LOA : 4.0" draft = 34.50:1
                        Anhinga @ 279.0" LOA : 7.0" draft = 39.86:1
                        ESC @ 414.0" LOA : 13.5" draft = 30.66:1


                        > Making any boat wider will reduce draft.

                        For a given length and displacement.


                        > The deeper the belly, the more we'll have to pile in the weight to
                        > keep it at the same underbody draft, if draft's what we're
                        > concerned with.

                        If length and displacement remain constant and the belly (draft) is deepened then the beam must get narrower.

                        If displacement increases then any or all other three parameters together may increase, including draft. (But this is only if the game remains the same.)


                        > That would have made a different boat entirely.

                        Yes, a boat with less initial stability, more secondary stability, but the same rules on the same court means for much the same game.


                        > So enough uniquely conceived volume was added aft to accept the
                        > weight. The midsection didn't change.

                        Ah ha, the game changer!



                        > > Anhinga @ 2400lbs displacement : 435lbs ballast = 5.51:1

                        > I think it would be hard to build Anhinga to plan that weighs more
                        > than 750 pounds empty. The 435# water = 2.72, about 30% ballast for
                        > the bare boat, almost as much as an AS, but in a narrower one
                        > perhaps not quite enough for the open sea.

                        500lbs lightship plus 435lbs ballast plus 600lbs gear and crew (or 1465lbs crew and gear) is 1535lbs sailaway displacement (or 2400lbs). Ballast ratio is only 28% (or 18%) The average ballast ratio for the three AS nominated is 26%. The Anhinga, as stated above, is proportionally widest of all six boats nominated. The average B/L for nominated AS and ESC boats is 25% and 19% respectively. AS boats are 31% less slender by that measure. These figures are all a long way under those of typical blue water yachts of, say, 50% ballast and 30% slenderness. But so are the figures for draft. It's a changed game for both AS and ESC boats when compared with typicals as is also shown by figures for draft/L of 3.2%, 2.8%, and 15% respectively. But the game changes again when moving from AS to ESC boats.


                        > You once had a scheme for adding ballast to Anhinga, on fins if
                        > IIRC, and / or for packing in up to 1000# of gear.

                        Ballasted dagger leeboards? Appropriate stowing is essential for trim.


                        > I agreed the boat might be much more predictable at 2400# than with
                        > an afternoon's sail appropriate displacement of 1600# after a look
                        >at these.
                        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/Software%20Models/BoatCalc%20Analysis/


                        The difference in Block Coefficient between the ESC and AS boats may be something like that between 0.5 and 0.6, ie a significant 20%. However, the DIFFERENCE lies deep in the ESC pin tail, and on heeling the comparative movement in the respective Centres of Flotation.

                        What's the simplicity to capability comparison of all?


                        "A notable feature of each of these boats is that they were perfect for their specific purpose at the time. One to prepare for the dream, the second to experience the dream, and the third to expand upon the dream. We have grown with our boats in the sense that we have never felt intimidated or overwhelmed by them, physically or financially. My litmus test has always been. "If I have to swim ashore from the wreckage of this boat, will I be able to recover and carry on without crippling debt or regret?" -- Alvah Simon

                        http://www.cruisingworld.com/how-to/living-aboard/we-just-kept-going-an-oral-history-of-the-cruising-life

                        http://dennisonberwick.info/?p=1199


                        > On Jun 13, 2012, at 10:32 PM, c.ruzer wrote:
                        > > En garde!

                        > > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@> wrote:
                        > > > That was not the idea. "I had the notion that a pointed stern
                        > > > without rocker would allow more ballast to be carried without
                        > > > increasing the size of the midsection."

                        > > Au contraire, whatever else could the idea possibly be other than
                        > > what it is said to be as it is stated? C'est une très bonne idée!

                        > > > Not the same as less draft.

                        > > Methinks that's mistaken. Bolger being viscerally joined to shoal
                        > > draft not withstanding, what acceptable alternative conception
                        > > is there?

                        > > Allez, c'est parti!

                        > > > Though larger over all, LM2 is an interesting contrast. I make the
                        > > > ballast required for him at 1900 of a total displacement of 11,000
                        > > > pounds, about a 5:1 ratio that's a lot less than what you've shown
                        > > > the Eeek! shaped boats to need.

                        > > LM2 a 5:1 stiffness ratio? Not at all!
                        > >
                        > > LM2 @ 10604lbs displacement : 2998lbs ballast = 3.53:1
                        > > AS29 @ 7300lbs displacement : 2000lbs ballast = 3.65:1
                        > > AS19 @ 2100lbs displacement : 500lbs ballast = 4.20:1
                        > > Eeek!lt @ 280lbs displacement : 40lbs ballast = 7.00:1
                        > > Eeek! @ 280lbs displacement : 75lbs ballast = 3.73:1
                        > > Anhinga @ 2400lbs displacement : 435lbs ballast = 5.51:1
                        > > ESC lt @ 8300lbs displacement :(1200lbs?ballast) = ??????
                        > > ESC @ 8300lbs displacement :(2240lbs?ballast) = ??????

                        > > Rather it's ballast versus draft on beam for length on
                        > > displacement for more ballast on similar draft,

                        > > LM2 @ 94.8" beam : 12" draft = 7.90:1
                        > > AS29 @ 94.0" beam : 13" draft = 7.23:1
                        > > AS19 @ 66.0" beam : 8" draft = 8.25:1
                        > > Eeek! @ 24.0" beam : 4" draft = 6.00:1
                        > > Anhinga @ 60.0" beam : 7" draft = 8.57:1
                        > > ESC @ 78.0" beam : 13.5" draft = 5.78:1

                        > > LM2 @ 452.4" LOA : 94.8" beam = 4.77:1
                        > > AS29 @ 354.0" LOA : 94.0" beam = 3.76:1
                        > > AS19 @ 234.0" LOA : 66.0" beam = 3.54:1
                        > > Eeek! @ 138.0" LOA : 24.0" beam = 5.75:1
                        > > Anhinga @ 279.0" LOA : 60.0" beam = 4.65:1
                        > > ESC @ 414.0" LOA : 78.0" beam = 5.30:1

                        > > the corollary being for similar displacement on less draft. Altered
                        > > field contours and markings with same rules: a different game.

                        > > Voilà.

                        > > > On Jun 8, 2012, at 7:47 AM, c.ruzer wrote:
                        > > > > ... so too much draft defeating the original idea of same
                        > > > > displacement on less immersed cross-section, ie. less draft?
                      • c.ruzer
                        Yahongkong playing up again? Random chop-chop chopping on the way through - if it goes through? One bit missing from here I know was a link to Eric Sponberg s
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jun 14, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yahongkong playing up again? Random chop-chop chopping on the way through - if it goes through? One bit missing from here I know was a link to Eric Sponberg's "The Design Ratios" pdf lectures article at: http://www.sponbergyachtdesign.com/Articles.htm http://www.sponbergyachtdesign.com/THE%20DESIGN%20RATIOS.pdf


                          --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "c.ruzer" <c.ruzer@...> wrote:
                          > The difference in Block Coefficient between the ESC and AS boats may be something like that between 0.5 and 0.6, ie a significant 20%. However, the DIFFERENCE lies deep in the ESC pin tail, and on heeling the comparative movement in the respective Centres of Flotation.


                          > What's the simplicity to capability comparison ratio of all?
                        • c.ruzer
                          Thick enough flat plate steel for aft bottom? Or alternatively all but the decks plate steel? (If all steel the relative expansion issues of the applied AS
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jul 18, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thick enough flat plate steel for aft bottom? Or alternatively all but the decks plate steel? (If all steel the relative expansion issues of the applied AS series armoured bottom are avoided... and ply/wood deck to steel topsides expasion joint is old boat hat..?)


                            "Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." Wernher von Braun

                            --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:

                            > You once had a scheme for adding ballast to Anhinga, on fins if
                            > IIRC,

                            > and / or for packing in up to 1000# of gear. I agreed the boat might
                            > be much more predictable at 2400# than with an afternoon's sail
                            > appropriate displacement of 1600# after a look at these.
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/Software%
                            > 20Models/BoatCalc%20Analysis/
                          • Mark Albanese
                            A steel hulled Anhinga would be quick to build. I m not sure about cheaper than decent ply. You could vary the thickness to suit, perhaps up to 3x the bare ply
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jul 19, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              A steel hulled Anhinga would be quick to build. I'm not sure about cheaper than decent ply. You could vary the thickness to suit, perhaps up to 3x the bare ply boat. The flat plate just under the cockpit will make the best ballast, though.





                              On Jul 18, 2012, at 11:32 PM, c.ruzer wrote:

                               



                              Thick enough flat plate steel for aft bottom? Or alternatively all but the decks plate steel? (If all steel the relative expansion issues of the applied AS series armoured bottom are avoided... and ply/wood deck to steel topsides expasion joint is old boat hat..?)

                              "Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." Wernher von Braun

                              --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, Mark Albanese <marka97203@...> wrote:

                              > You once had a scheme for adding ballast to Anhinga, on fins if
                              > IIRC,

                              > and / or for packing in up to 1000# of gear. I agreed the boat might
                              > be much more predictable at 2400# than with an afternoon's sail
                              > appropriate displacement of 1600# after a look at these.
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BolgerCartoons/files/Anhinga/Software%
                              > 20Models/BoatCalc%20Analysis/


                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.