Jump to content

DanSkorupka

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About DanSkorupka

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Has anyone heard about the Russel R power sharpie by Atkin. I have read of someone building it in plywood, and giving it quite a posh trim. If I were to build it within the next decade I would make it with a lot heavier scantlings and a bare bones workboat finish. Despite being flat bottomed and hard chined even the slab sided plywood version would reported slice through 2 foot wakes and heavy chop easily and comfortably due to its sharp entry and very flared forward topsides. The flared topsides also allowed it to go over swells rather than through them like for example a canoe would. the dimensions are as follows, taken from the designers website: "a neatly turned skiff 21 feet 10 inches over all; 20 feet 6 inches on the water line; 5 feet 8 inches in breadth on deck and 8 inches draft to the bottom of the skeg. The propeller and protecting shoe of the outboard motor project 6 inches below the skeg; the total underway draft thus being 14 inches--little enough by any measure. The freeboard at the bow is 2 feet 10 1/2 inches, the least freeboard is 1 foot 7 inches; and the height at the stern, 1 foot 10 inches." to get a better idea here is the rough body plan notice that although it is lightly built it has a burdensome dwl; at the designed load it can be seen that both forefoot and transom are well immersed despite having a rockered bottom and so I think it would perform normally even if built more heavily than originally called for. with regards to speed and efficiency there is not another semi displacement outboard that can compare (that I know of); according to the designer "a motor of about 12 h.p. is large enough for Russell R. The speed with this size unit will be a good 17 m.p.h." Plans are still being sold at http://www.atkinboat...r/RussellR.html
  2. found plans for a 14 x 5 foot multipurpose plywood simple deep vee, rockered but able to take up to 5 hp. have not seen the body plan for the spindrift, so i cant honestly tell how similar they are and should probably be thought of as a separate class instead of a spindrift 14 (based on photos, there is probably a fair amount of difference between the two; this is deeper, has more rocker and may be more like the bay river skiff in that the bottom panels are not convex but flat). This one is ply on frame not stitch and glue, but could likely be adapted by a skilled builder. It is the sea skiff by William Jackson here is a link to study plans: country plans multi-skiff hope this is some help
  3. I was reading some posts on the oldmarineengine.com discussion group and found something interesting. Someone posted a scan of part of an edition of The Rudder from sometime in 1939. It was the Dyer products list. On it was something very interesting. Dyer made a 14 foot inboard powered version of the Dink. loa was 14'0", max beam was 5'0" and top speed was 8 to 10 mph depending on load with a 2 horsepower Briggs and Stratton with 2/1 reduction gear. Currently, where I live, there are many dedicated planing hulls designed for the teens and way up requiring very large motors and being miserable to row, and true displacement hulls, and I have found nothing in between in the 13 to 16 foot range intended for motoring on the market, or popular modern plans. This creates an interesting problem that is more complicated than the speed vs. fuel economy debate. Many boaters seem to want to spend much of their time in the range of 7 to 12 knots. This unfortunately is the same speed where many planing powerboats squat, nose up, throw a huge wake and use more fuel per mile than when fully planing. I think it would do a lot of good if more small true semidisplacement boats were sold, but this category appears to be gone and forgotten in my region save for yachts and tiny dinghies. Is there anything similar in behavior, hullform and economy to the seemingly forgotten dyer dink 14 in this same rough size range (13 to 16 feet) today, or perhaps would it somehow be possible to get a body plan of the hull in question. Has anyone here ever seen a wooden Dyer Dink (any size) outside of a museum? Are or were plans available? Is there a well preserved specimen that could be measured or has been measured? I am not in a position to build and likely will not be for a number of years, but I am sure someone out there would be interested in building and using such a boat, and I myself am curious about these things.
  4. I found an interesting plywood sold at a local (to me) big box mart. It is a 5 ply type using two spices in one panel. The species are hard maple and poplar. It looks to be Maple -poplar -maple -poplar -maple. It uses a unique adhesive, derived somehow from soy proteins. The adhesive was apparently the result of a bio-mimetic experiment looking to immitate the byssus fibers used by mussels to cling to rocks. I have heard talk on forum.woodenboat.com of a torture test where a piece of OSB panel using this type of glue was boiled for an estimated two DAYS and remained intact. The stuff is made by Columbia forest products in North Carolina. According to their website they borrow the grading names from ANSI but have higher standards for each individual grade. Of note is a restriction on repaired knots to three 1/2 inch per 4x8 panel on grade 2 for the back veneer. strength of bond is claimed to be better than urea formaldehyde, even when wet but no numbers are provided to support that. a single 3/4 inch 4x8 inch panel weighs 75 pounds. A nearby home despot sells the 3/4 inch 4x8 panels in question priced little higher than 3/8 inch okoume ply in the same region. my questions: Is anyone familiar with this or similar plywood with differing species will it warp excessively when wet. I fully expect it to be a royal B.(censored)h to bend; will it be possible to bend it enough (with a spanish windlass) for use in a large flatiron skiff or similar boat? Is something like this worth the money? Will it take fasteners adequately? I'm not looking for great performance, have a lot of time on my hands, and would not be put off by having to drill a starter hole for every screw or large nail. Is this any better or worse for boatbuilding than ab pine or douglas fir with a formaldehyde based adhesive. I know very little about plywood and am worried about having left a poor first impression by suggesting putting over 5 hp on a skin on frame boat with large flat areas and later sounding too harsh when defending my desire for an older box keel design so please be both gentle and honest. I am worried about this sounding spam like and am sorry if it comes off as such. if it is too spamlike where do I post about commercial products (I am not in any way related to the company and am not an advertiser) I am posting for purposes of discussion and am unsure if this is fit for marine use.
  5. I have no need and no desire to go faster than the teens. I was given the privilege of piloting the ww2 amphibious landing craft "Red Sox Nathan" on the Charles river and part of Boston harbor when my high school chartered the Boston duck tours. It was the first time I ever piloted an inboard, and the first time using a steering wheel instead of a tiller. I enjoyed it quite a bit, and found it to be a steering response I got along adequately with. There was little more difficulty in handling than a certain rental skiff on cape cod with a normal outboard, I got used to it nearly as quickly as I got used to oars. I certainly hope Happy Clam would be more maneuverable than Red Sox Nathan. The fastest I have ever been on the water was with a 10 foot jon boat, and a Johnson weedless 4 hp seahorse. About 20 mph I guess (couldn't measure), and the engine didn't HAVE a reverse or even a clutch or neutral gear. Obviously the larger, heaver, more streamlined boat will coast further, and benefit more from a reverse. Even so I could leave the tiller and get up front even while flying through the meanders of the upper Charles, which probably gives a much shorter opportunity to respond. Regardless I do admit that a modern craft, with a shallower draft no box keel and outboard would be a more comfortable, easier to handle, faster, and although easy to get into trouble in, would be safer when a problem did arise. My boat would spend most of its time on slow, calm rivers sightseeing, or sometimes performing assistance to volunteers cleaning the river. It does not need to be fast; the speed limit on my favorite river is 10 knots. It does not need to have a small turning radius. The engine I would use has no reverse gear. Tight maneuvers would be performed by electric trolling motor, likely bow mounted. I have not committed myself to this or any other design. I wanted to find out more about an unconventional hull that I was curious about so I started this thread hoping to hear from someone about their experiences with this boat. I wonder if any Happy Clams exist at all today. I have heard about a vaguely similar modern equivalent (but more rounded, and much larger) hull called the "displacement glider" It has a deeper, narrower box keel running nearly the entire length of the bottom. It has very good fuel economy, but has a large turning radius, is difficult to steer in reverse and has high drag and poor handling and economy at speeds over the mid teens. It has gotten a lot of attention on other forums, implying some demand for the type.
  6. Has anyone ever heard of Happy Clam by John Atkin. The plans were for the longest time not on the Atkin's plan website. It is an inboard powered vee bottom boat with a large box keel, derived from the Seabright skiff, but very different from the pulling boats and fast runabouts also given the Seabright skiff name. It is 17 feet LOA, 16 feet LWL, displaces 900 lb empty, and draws 11 1/2 inches. Its most impressive feature is its economy; it will plane with 5 hp at 14 mph, and the designer expected 20 mph with a 10 horsepower motor. It is a complex hull form, but the topsides are conventional lapstrake (clinker) type and have a large margin for error. It is a time consuming build; it took a commercial shop 428 hours to build it in 1950. I have never built a boat, and have a poor sense of time, so I do not know how long it would take an amateur to construct it. I do not believe I could do it myself as designed. full plans can be purchased here for $45 USD and A scan of the study plans as posted in Mechanix Illustrated is available as a large (1.45 MB) pdf Here I wonder if it could be built in fiberglass on foam core and get good results. I know little about the relative merits of various materials and techniques, but have read that fiberglass is a good option for complex hull forms. I also am wondering if a modern substitute could be found for the old marine engines. Beta Marine engines makes marinized Kubota diesels as small as 10 hp and has multiple local distributors, but I could hardly afford the exhaust system alone. Honda makes its commercial air cooled small engines available with six to one or now also a two to one reduction gear as an option. Has anyone ever seen one in person or heard of one being built in recent decades, especially by different materials or methods than called for in the original plans. I saw a photo of a non tunnel stern vee botom seabright of 17 or so feet in length, with a large box keel built in fiberglass, and a caption saying these are common somewhere. I cant find it anymore, but it is shown upside down and is white both topsides and below waterline. The website does not use the words seabright skiff, so I cant google it. Has any one seen this photo?
  7. I wish I knew what it was, I think it was strip planked and bore a vague resemblance to the American Sail American 18 daysailer (but it isnt) and is somewhat narrower. I am not entirely sure if it was 7 people or five, I think more than one were children, i only ever saw it once, when it passed by me. It was a very low range planing, distinguished primarily by the shape of the wake, and the fact that it was noticeably faster than hull speed. probably about 7 to 10 knots. While I unfortunately do not have that plan, i have found something that performs a lot like it, but would take many years to build. The plan I found was claimed to be a seabright skiff, put was almost entirely unrelated to the pulling boat of the same name, save the box keel. The Happy Clam is a John (not William) Atkin design, 17 feet long 5 foot 6 inch beam, and built for small inboard power. It has a box keel the size of a canoe, draws over 11 inches, and planes with 5 mph at 14 knots, and the designer expects 20 mph with a 10 hp motor. It was boasted to have been clocked off the official mile (I assume nautical?) off loyds neck at 14.8 per hour with a 5 hp Palmer BH 6 inboard. A detailed description that appeared in Mechanix Illustrated is available here. I would love this boat but I could never build it. A look at the build time on page 9 of the pdf will explain why I am looking for something simpler. That was a commercial shop back in the 1950s doing it. I don't even know how to guess how long it would take a homebuilder. I know it is far beyond what I am able to do personally.
  8. I never claimed to be an expert in hull design, I am not a boat designer and as such am not proposing to alter the shape of any craft. I am not that good at analyzing photos, and already mentioned that I don't have any diagram of the cs 17. I have not been trained in boat design or hydrodynamics, and have had no source other than the internet to educate me up to this point. I was unaware of just how important the chine profile is. My logic was to provide an example of a rockered bottom which could plane under motor IF there were sufficient weight forward to keep the bow down and the speeds were kept within reason. I thought this could be applied to a wide variety of hull designs. I have personally seen a moderately rockered boat, 16 or 18 feet in length plane with a 6 hp mercury on the Sudbury (or maybe Assabett) river . The boat was a soft chine rounded bottom type, and had 5 people in the forward third of the boat, and only 2 further back if i recall correctly. Its speed was in the low teens. When I said that the Able Mable was very like what I was thinking of I did not intend to have it taken as it was. I DID NOT intend to pass it off as a oversized core sound. Yes, I admit, there are different boats meant for different purposes with different propulsion, with important differences in hull shape. The purpose of my prior post was to correct an error in an earlier post, and to respond to Tom Lathrop's statement on the high point of thrust of sail. I know this makes a big difference, and am aware that in high winds the bow of a sailboat is pushed too far down. My message is that motor trim and weight distribution can, at lower speeds make a crude, incomplete, but somewhat effective substitute for the nose down force of a sail, enabling it to use more forward of the stern. I know that the top planing speed will still be substantially slower than a sail on the same vessel. I know that the effect of doing this always will be less than the force applied by a sail. I acknowledge that the Able Mable's chine will give it a lot more stern planing surface than a normal sailboat. I should have better worded my prior post to illustrate that the Able Mable is very unlike any modern small production powerboat I have ever heard of, in the sense that modern powerboats tend to have great transom width and absolutely no rocker, a point I wanted to emphasize more than any similarity (or lack thereof) to the B&B sailboats. I retract my claim of the Able Mable being a "rather sailboat like design" in light of further thought and your valuable information. Also regarding chine profile is another poster put a 15 horsepower engine on the admittedly different Bay River Skiff, and planed successfully, albeit limited in speed and with undesirable levels of nose up. It also has a chine that is not buried for much of its aft run, and rises back up at the stern, but is not as much out of the water as the core sound is. I know I am in deeper than I should be, and while I do not know much now I am able to learn as long as I can obtain the information, and learn I will. I came to this forum to learn better than I could by just reading, not just to spew ideas. All I intend to ever do is build a core sound 17 (out of plywood, I was having doubts about SOF even before starting this thread, and now know better), put a 5 or 6 hp engine on it, put doel fins or other foils on the motor, have some friends in the forward half of the boat and go cruising around local rivers. My favorite nearby river has a speed limit of 10 knots, and I don't like high speeds, so I'm not looking for something that will fly around at some insane pace, but just to go 8 to 10 knots without spending the entire time at full throttle. I have neither need nor desire to be able to go over about 12 or so knots. I am not planing on any radical redesign, or even altering the hull. My only change would be to remove the masts. If I want to sail in future I can still add them.
  9. Earlier I mentioned Atkins Rescue Minor, this was a mistake, I was thinking of Able Mable and forgot the name, Also by William Atkin. Not a B&B design, or even a plywood design, but very like what I am thinking of, except it is too big for me and my finances. It is a rather sailboat like hull and will plane with surprisingly little power. This is probably due to his use of a slow turning 186 cubic inch engine (no longer made) and the placement of its great heft a long way forward, and based on what I have been told it would nose up and porpoise harshly if an outboard were used without a heavy forward load (Is this true?). Here is a link Atkin's Able Mable I have not seen the body or sheer plan of the core sound boats, as they are not free on the web. From photographs of the cs 17 I think they look very similar under the waterline, except for a higher LOA/beam ratio on the Able Mable. Are there lower priced study plans fore the CS series boats?
  10. Thank you for your help, I was worried about the large flat areas. I will not likely be building my boat for quite some time, and have made no commitments at all. Regarding gas motors on SOF boats, the larger Umiaks have been powered quite successfully with internal combustion outboards, although not at planing speeds and they were rounded shapes. I am confused as to why a sailboat will plane easily under sail but will bow up and porpoise under power at the same speed. The Rescue Minor by Atkin, and the Paiute by Weston Farmer are very sailboat like hulls, and look to me like they have a fair amount in common with the core sound series. They both are vee hulls with a large amount of rocker, and both are very close in size (24-25 foot long, 6 foot beam). Both plane with a small (20 to 30 hp) motor and if properly trimmed will not nose up. I have read that rockered semi-planing hulls, when properly trimmed, under motor, do not squat and nose up but instead it is difficult to tell low range planing from non planing without looking at the wake. The source for this information was an article about the Atkin Scandal skiff. The rider said it simply seemed to be levitating. After reading your comments I have decided against skin on frame, and if I ever build will use plywood. The motor I intend to use is a 5 horsepower briggs and stratton. On other forums there has been much confusion about these, which I would like to clear up. It uses a marinized version of 189 cc commercial Intek block as its powerhead. this has been given a heavier flywheel, and a carburetor more suited to low speed operation. It is very like the premium lawnmower engine off of which it is based. It is actually conservatively rated; the lawnmower version produces over 6 hp at 2800 rpm, and over 7 hp at 3600 rpm. The governor limits the outboard to 4000 rpm. Yes it is loud, yes it vibrates heavily. I own one and was once employed in small engine repair. Most use would be on slow moving rivers in mild weather, except on Nauset Marsh (cape cod)in late summer. I might also use it in efforts to clean up said slow moving rivers. I would use thicker plywood than the plan calls for, I think 1/4 inch is kind of flimsy for my purposes. Thinking 1/2 inch hardwood ply. Weight is of little concern, I will be using a midsize suv to tow it, so I can deal with a hefty hull.
  11. Hi I'm new here. Sorry in advance for such a long post. I have been looking for an efficient, multi-purpose semidisplacement boat for some time. A couple of years ago I stumbled upon the Happy Clam by Atkin. It is seaworthy, has amazing fuel economy, and is aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. HOWEVER it is a very complicated hull by any standard. study plans call for 428 hours build time for a commercial shop. I found out about the Core Sound 17 and I think this will fit my bill. I have long been frustrated with the lack of any motorboat that will travel in the low teens with a small motor, carry a substantial load, and be build able by an inexperienced woodworker. My idea is to build a core sound 17 hull shape as a dedicated motorboat i.e. mast absent. I have also been intrigued by large skin on frame boats, and the possibility of propelling them by internal combustion. it may sound crazy but look at the umiaks still used by Alaskan and Canadian first nations. I have heard that in a force 5 wind 25 to 35 square feet of sail equal one horsepower, and in a force 4 wind the equivalent is between 50 and 70 feet squared per horsepower. given about 120 ft^2 of sail: 120/30 = 4 and 120/50 = 2.4 . I have heard the largest safe motor for the cs 17 is 10 hp.(is this true or just someone trying to sell bigger motors?) if there is any question if a CS17 can plane with a motor there are two facts I would like to point out 1: people have planed under sail without removing the motor and 2: this so finally what I propose is a skin on frame version of the core sound 17 or something very similar, with a heavily overbuilt transom. thank you, Daniel
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.