Tom Lathrop

When I got my first 15 1/2 foot sailboat in 1966, one of he first thoughts was to mount a small motor to get about when the wind did not blow. One way or the other it has never happened that a motor has been on when sailing, although there have been some longish paddles. Found out that a whisker pole is more effective as a paddle than you might imagine. The BRS was excellent as a motorboat or sailboat and was used both ways. Everyone's situation is different and its clear that some will find great utility in having a small motor kicking along back there. A BRS is designed so that a separate mount is not needed but the others will need some kind of provision for mounting. On some, a notch to one side with a bit of reinforcement will suffice while others will need a more involved installation.

I haven't talked to Graham about it but will make a guess. Carlita has considerably more sail area than the standard CS 17. Unless the CB of Carlita was increased in area to balance the side force from the greater sail area, it may not be quite large enough in a blow. Easiest way to do this while maintaining the same interior room is to make the CB longer. Carlita may (likely) also have squeezed in more sail area than a standard CS17 MK3 for racing the EC. Could possibly also have weight deeper for more righting moment. Just speculation but will hear what Graham has to say.

I would not want a 61# 6hp on a CS15 transom for sailing but it would not be a problem under power. The weight is not excessive for powering as I have used as much as 9.9hp on a BRS15 although the hull shape of the CS will not allow the best use of the power. The smaller motors will be better for sailing with. One of the early CS15's had a small (not sure of the power) motor stored in the lazarett. Of course, the CS is a sailboat and there is seldom if ever any need for a motor. Oars or paddles will be adequate for most short term needs. A motor has more disadvantages that the weight. Fuel smell and storage, noise, handling and starting a balky beast come to mind as well as the ever present need for maintenance.

The ledgers are small, only about 7/16" square or even less. If your boards are cut precisely to fit the space between the tanks, they cannot move about. No shortage of great places to sail and camp on. Launch at Atlantic and sail across Core Sound to Drum Inlet and camp on the spit is great and avoids grasses that attract the skeeters. Skeeters don't like wind and there is usually wind there to blow them away. Launch at Harkers Island and sail to Cape Lookout where those photos were taken. Many others.

It was a simple deal Don. Floorboards were 9mm rectangles and met over the keelson and sized to fit the space between aft seat/tanks. A tab on one board allowed the other board to rest securely there. Ledgers to rest the floorboards on were glued 9mm below the seat and tank tops to fit the floorboards on. A hinged leg under one board in the center gave enough support to hold the middle up. A wood toggle locked the boards down on one end of the keelson and a raised lip on the other. Don't have any detail photos and don't remember any more details but you can work it out. For mosquitos, there were screens on both ends and repellent. An anchorage downwind from marsh grass is to be avoided when possible.

Well that did not work, try again.

Chick, Don, That photo is of LOON at Cape Lookout. I'm attaching two other photos of our setup. The floorboards lifted up to make a berth 5' X 7" aft of the CB trunk. We used Thermarest mattresses and they were reasonably comfortable. The other couple with Liz and I were Jim Brown and Nancy May and you can see that the room inside was pretty nice. I don't think John and Lynn fully appreciated sleeping on the boat afloat and were more used to a tent ashore. Everything, including the shelter, needed for camping was packed in the seat and bow compartments in LOON so nothing ever got wet. I made the shelter from ripstop Nylon.

Liz and I did not take LOON to the Sea of Cortez although we have camped and fished there from our camper. LOON was sold to John and Lynn Sperry, two botanists professors from Duke University and they took her the rest of the way after moving back to Utah. The sale resulted in the purchase of plywood and epoxy materials to build LIZ, our 24' power cruiser. I am sure that the CS17 would be much more suitable for long camp cruises, John and Lynn have clearly had a ball with the BRS. A BRS17 would serve their plan better also but their tale on the B&B website shows what can be done in a BRS15 in capable hands.

I've built quite a few of Graham's designs and helped build others. The BRS remains a favorite and the utility of the BRS as well as the classic skiff look are all part of the appeal. My BRS15 is LOON of the B&B website built over 22 years ago and well traveled since. LOON has sailed in NC, SC, the Chesapeake, Maine, Quebec, Ontario,and Lake Superior before going to the Great Salt Lake and several weeks camp cruising in the Sea of Cortez. The BRS15 will plane at 10mph plus with 10hp but is happier with an 8hp motor and the CS cannot do these. Grahams explanation of how and why the CS was developed covers the subject well. The CS is a better sailboat in more open water while the BRS is better for fishing, powering and is a better work boat. Graham and I along with Jim Brown with crews in our three BRS15s once held a wild plane from Bonner Bay to Vandemere in a northeaster for at least 4 miles that was great fun, if a bit wet. A CS might have been a bit dryer but no more fun.

I agree with PAR and Graham on plywood for boats. My own measurements show that meranti is 24% heavier than occoume so I would not use it where weight is critical but would prefer it where weight is not an issue and it is to be painted. Meranti is a bit stronger with a stiffer and a more rugged face and a bit more rot resistant but all need protection from moisture. The aesthetics of the face on all can be quite different from sheet to sheet and meranti is on average (to me) less attractive finished bright than occoume. There has been no official support of the BS1088 or BS6566 standard for over 20 years and you need to trust the supplier rather than the stamp that may be on the sheets.

Egbert, You have built a beautiful example of a Bluejacket. I would like to take credit but, for your execution, you get to take a well deserved bow.

Never even thought about a like button before but you should feel better now Dave

Chuck, On fender storage and use, we use eye straps bolted to the deck and snaps on the fender lines to attach them to LIZ. Two 8" fenders are kept attached port and starboard and slung over the cockpit aft of the pilothouse bulkhead and ready for use. Length is adjusted at the snap knot. One fender is kept attached in the starboard side of the anchor well and the fourth fender is kept in the well unless we are needing it often as in routes with frequent locks. The middle fender is handled from the side window and kept where most convenient, depending on need. Often there is no need to do other than flip these fenders out which is great when landlubbers are doing it. 8" diameter fenders are adequate and highly recommended as sufficient for all Bluejackets. Small fenders a almost useless. We do have a cushioned 2X4 fender board stored in the cockpit side shelf for use where vertical pilings limit the usefulness of regular fenders.

Jim, Looks like you are well along to getting what you need for a steadying sail. A tabernacle that drops the mast forward should leave little folded height above the PH top. One issue is that with a dinghy or other on PH top, folding will probably be restricted and bridge clearance can suffer.

As PAR said, having a steadying off center will still work. In fact, it may even work better than one on centerline. I often unbalance my anchor rode for the same effect by tying a rolling hitch on the rode abut 15' or so forward of the stem. This line is taken to the stern and used to pull the boat off center from the the anchor. It does put more load on the anchor but a good one will handle this. You need to leave room for the sliding pilothouse door forward of the mast and the top will probably need some beefing up unless you use stays on the mast which I would not bother with for normal use. If you wish to use the boom as a dinghy crane, it will get more complicated. You will also need to make changes to the cockpit sole covering the tank(s) to support the heel of the mast. I would not personally want the mast heel on top of the pilothouse as that would mean that it has to be stayed. That would create extra issues in removing it for trailering and storage as well as beefing up the top.

This thread should be the home of all posts about fuel tanks and related fuel issues. Thanks to Frank for moving the posts here. Tom

Dave, You did your study as well as anyone can be expected to do, given the obtuse interpretations that we seem to get when a question is asked about this subject. I too, like aluminum tanks for several reasons. First and for some people, most important, is that the volume efficiency of a custom tank is way better than any off the shelf model. That means that fuel capacity in the available space can be greatly increased, sometimes doubled. Aluminum tanks can also be well baffled which almost stops surges before they can get started. If an aluminum tank is coated with something like two coats of Interprotect and suspended off the hull, external corrosion is virtually nil. Keeping fuel containing ethanol to a minimum in storage is good practice. Not what we used to hear but today's gas is not what we used to buy whether it contains ethanol or not. I think this deserves a thread of its own. Anyone savvy enough to transfer all the posts to a separate one??

Chuck, A powered ventilation system will take care of any safety issue, which the USCG says does not exist with the smell from the Moeller tanks. It will not affect the smell that accumulates in boat storage unless you leave it on, which I assume you do not plan on doing. I don't think that is a good solution. I have asked the CG about a brushless solar fan on the output vent but they did not offer an answer. That seems like a good answer to tank space ventilation to me but I maybe it has to make it's way through a few years of bureaucracy first.

The way I read it is that natural vents in and out of an otherwise sealed compartment holding a fuel tank is fine. I already have the outlet vent installed and could make both fairly easily. Most of the verbage is reserved for inboard engines where requirements are much more strict.

I have a Moeller of the wrong vintage, thanks to ethanol, and get the smell too. My current thinking of a retrofit of this tank is to seal the tank space fore and aft and run a large PVC pipe cut into an arc in the V under the tank. The pipe section provides ventilation and drainage through the tank space without interfering with the tank in any way. Could be done just as well with a piece of plywood over the V, leaving room for the tank in its current location. The Coast Guard says the tank is safe and there is no danger from the vapor leak, but I don't like it. Don't notice any smell after opening the boat to a breeze, underway or in any breeze.

I know a picture is supposed to be worth a thousand words but every time I look at those bunks, they look different to me. Now I see that I was misled by the apparent down bevel cut on the forward end and tough that the bunks were wide metal and not think they look tall, narrow and wood. If that is true, disregard almost all I said earlier today.

Egbert, Those bunks look better than I originally thought as they are wide and the angle appears to be adjustable. I am not sure that a 20' bunk would conform to the hull (or maybe they can) but longer than 14' is surely needed. Are these bunks able to twist under load or with adjustment? In any event, more support of the 10' overhang is needed to be certain of not causing any issue forward. I do remember that you did add quite a bit of weight forward and I suspect that the CG of Pur Dee is further forward than other BJ25's. It's a relatively simple problem and I'm sure you will handle it well. Edited; Just took a longer look at these bunks. The seem to be locked at an angle that is too high and are supporting the aft bottom only on the outer edge. If so, that is not good. They appear to be set for a deep V hull. Robert, I've followed some of your boatbuilding activities and find that I also do a broad spread of different projects, boats, furniture, brick a brac, knives and other twaddle. Tom

Tiger, I wanted to say that I did look at building an SOF canoe but after calculating the projected weight, I found that it would weigh significantly more than my B&B Birder kayaks so I abandoned the idea. Could not really cotton to the lighter Monfort design although they are very elegant. I thought the Monfort skin too fragile compared to the tough but much heavier material Kudzu recommends.

Thanks for you input Paul. Yes indeed, angling the bunks is often helpful with the forward warped plane although these bunks, as they are, don't go very far forward. I'm sure Egbert understands the need for keel support forward. That should take care of the support issue. We sometimes don't so much solve a problem as trample it to death but it does work. The trampling of problems is much more seen on other forums with multitudes of replies of varying expertise.

Egbert, I should have added that the current bunks might be kept and another set added to make the total support more spread out both in length and breadth. Mi ght be cheaper too. I often use multiple bunks on my trailers because it is often easier to provide more support where it is needed than with just two.