pics

[Damian]

Has anybody got any drawings of boats designed by themselves that they would be willing to share. It would be good to se some work by some other people that usually we would not get to see. Maybe there is already a thread with some drawings. Even early sketches would be good to see.

[ErikG]

Damian

I know that Jeff is working on something that would let us expose our ideas and drawings. What form it'll take and how it might work I don't know.

It might also be problematic for people like us and even more for working designers to determine what can/should be shared and what ideas and thoughts are best kept secret.
Copying and stealing ideas and concepts occur all the time in every industry and is a serious issue.

ErikG

[Damian]

Yeah I figured that might be a problem, maybe it wasn't such a good idea after all, never mind.

[ErikG]

Though there are issues going with it that needs consideration, thats all.
I for one would be happy contributing with sketches and interior drawings and so, but not linesdrawings and more detailed drawings.

ErikG

[b_rodwell]

I like it too.

It would be good to have a place where, if you wanted to, you could put your work for critical comment.

[Jeff]

Excellent.

We absolutely want to make this a part of our site. I think it will be a great content area for boatdesign.net and we have an extra 30 GB of server space and 500 GB of bandwidth/month sitting idle right now :)

We will just have to work out exactly how much we want to automate it and who we want to view what and how simple or how sophisticated we want it to be. For example it could be integrated with our forums as the basic functions are here – we can use ImageMagick on the server to generate thumbnails or an add-on like Techimo PhotoPost (http://www.qksrv.net/click-245116-6308406) which integrates easily with vBulletin and can also use access masks. Or we could setup more flexible free subdomain space so each designer would be able to display work under their-name.boatdesign.net or their-name.navalarchitecture.org or their-name.yachtdesign.info. Or we could accept image and text submissions (via email or via the forums) and then hand review and format them to maintain consistency. We could feature one sketch per month on our homepage for those who want to maximize visibility either to promote design services or plan sales, etc.

At this stage, ideas and input are welcome if there are specific things you would like to see or a way that you would prefer this be done. Or we can just wait and see which way works best for whoever wants to show off some work first. I am always looking for projects to feature on boatdesign.net, and I’m glad to put in some time anytime to either format and post work which someone wants to feature on the main (static html) site or to add something to the server to automate the process if that looks like the way to go, or both.

I think it's a fine idea, too. As a professional designer I would look forward to commentary on my designs-in-gestation. I think that I am bright enough to know what or what not to show to protect my ass..ets. I hope this goes forward.

[Tad]

Jeff;

As print magazines have dropped the design section and lost the ability to do a design review, the web must take over critical review. This site should be a leader in this. Many designers present some work on their websites, but do not invite review or discussion. Many are so busy trying to hang on to what they have they do not even present one real drawing to public review. I feel sorry for those who have one idea and spend the rest of their life trying to hang on to it. As designers we must give it away. Yes, there will be someone who will copy my original work, but there will be others; "real" designers, who will be inspired and build on it. From that we all gain.

It is also vital that students have a place to publish; I don't see Westlawn or Macngthon doing this. Many students are isolated and could benefit greatly from some "show-and-tell" here.

The Rhino gallery is good, you can post a model and a short description, but there is no critical discussion. With the present format in boatdesign.net you could just add two new forums; Student Gallery and Professional Gallery. People could post whatever they wanted to show and start a discussion thread. Inevitably there would be one or two folks that would dominate the territory and you would have to set limits.

In the general spirit here's a recent Rhino model. She's called Passagemaker Lite and is 56' by 13'. Displacement is about 51,000 lbs. Twin John Deere 4045s push her up to 11.5 knots. Range with reserve is about 1700 miles at 10 knots, fuel capacity is 1100 gallons.
http://www.tadroberts.com/Pics/PL 56 port.jpg

All the best, Tad

[duluthboats]

Jeff,
Things just get better and better. I like it here because of the variety of ideas. And it’s nice occasionally to get some feed back on mine. Looking at what others are working on usually stimulates more ideas.

Tad,
I’m not qualified to make any critical review of your design so you’ll have to settle for my opinion. I like the mixture of new and old in the lines. I like the cockpit above the aft cabin. This is a great outdoor space without losing cabin space. I think the pilot house layout will be tough with all the ladders. She would look great on Lake Superior. Thanks for sharing her with us.

Gary

[tom28571]

Tad,

I'm getting to the point that I can recognize your work when I see it. This looks like it would be just right for extended cruises to the north.

This boat is way out of my experience but will probably interest Mike. Is there any other purpose for the bulb in the bow other than extended waterline length.

I launched the boat two years ago that I was designing when we last corresponded. It has performed very well for us and meets all the goals that I set for it.

[Portager]

Tad;

I like your idea of a design gallery.

I like the looks of Passagemaker Lite a lot! I like long narrow boats, they are more efficient to power and they look sleek. The efficiency of Passagemaker Lite is evidenced by the fact that it can achieve 11.5 knots with two 75 HP engines (or do you use the 85 HP M2 rating to reach this speed?). It is nice to see someone who is willing to buck the current trend of fat boats that seam to be optimized for slip length. I also like maximizing the waterline length. Too much overhang reduces the waterline length and reduce displacement speed. I also like the fly bridge aft of the Pilothouse and I see that you have an optional hard top for it (being naturally curious I went to your home page and checked out the info you have there). As a fair skinned redheaded UV magnet, I would take the hardtop. :)

I assume you are looking for feedback so here are my comments. I am not sure how much of Passagemaker Lite's design was driven by a clients requests or desires, but here is what I would change if I were your client.

Engines: First I'd want to change the engine location. In a passagemaker that is designed to survive rough sees I prefer to see the engines closer to the longitudinal CG it reduces the pitch moment of inertia which reduces porpoising. I also like the engine below the pilothouse so the watch stander can perform engine checks easier and without going far from the bridge. It looks to me like there could be room for a moderate engine room below the pilothouse. If I were going to have twin engines, I would want controllable pitch propellers so I could feather one and run off a single engine, but my first preference would be for a very reliable single. Personally I think twin engines are for the totally paranoid or uneducated. With a reliable well maintained diesel most breakdowns at sea will be due to fuel problems, so I'd invest more money in fuel filtering and a better single. I'm thinking the Gardner 6LXB (I know they are out of production, but there are still a few "new" ones left built in 1998 and a refurbished Gardner is still better than any new engine I know of) would be an ideal choice and with a single engine the engine room will be much less crowded and the prop will be more protected.

Owners stateroom: The current trend/style of putting the owners stateroom forward is fine for coastal cruisers but not very good for a passagemaker. In rough seas it will be impossible to sleep in the forward compartments and everyone will end up in the salon. I'd prefer an aft owners stateroom.

Windows: The windows aft of the pilothouse that are flush with the sides make me nervous, although I know the loading this far aft should be moderate. I guess the only way they could fail is if the boat rolled ~90 degrees, but it could happen.

Davit: In all but flat calm seas it is going to be difficult and dangerous to launch and recover the dinghy. In addition if you need to abandon ship it will take too long. I'd like a fast and easy means to launch and recover the dinghy. I like the ramps that the special operations craft use but that would consume too much room on a moderate size boat. I wish someone would design a combination ramp/gangway that could be used to launch and recover the dinghy and used to board it once it is launched.

Outboard motor on dinghy: One of my pet peeves is having to carry gasoline on a diesel boat to fuel the outboard on the dinghy. If the dinghy were diesel it would eliminate the need to store gasoline onboard and it would facilitate using the dinghy as a get home drive. I'd like to see a RIB with a diesel jet drive. I'd choose a jet drive for this application because it would eliminate external appendages that could interfere with the launch and recovery ramp and it would be safer as a dive boat.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[duluthboats]

First here is a link to Tad's site.
http://www.tadroberts.com/
I should have looked there before I spoke. I see now that the ladder to the top is on the outside. I would prefer the 46 footer, but it is still a foot longer than my new shop. :(
Gary

[Willallison]

Nice stuff Tad!

This could well be the 1st and last of these posts - by the time we've all had our 2cents worth of criticism, nobody will want to run their ideas by us again!!:D However, I think the idea of a place to put ideas up for comment is an excellent one.

Tad,
I'd have to go with Gary on the engine placement and single vs twins debate. The only downside to moving the engines fwd would be the rather long shafts that would result, but the resulting shaft whip problems can easily be overcome these days. It would also significantly increase the size of the aft cockpit, which is definitely a plus.

The addition of a generator with drive connections to give get home capability is a thoroughly tried and true solution to the loss of one motor.
It is difficult to get much of an idea about the shape of the bulbous bow, but a number of designers these days are giving the bulb flatter bottom sections. This reduces the bulbs efficiency slightly but can dramatically reduce pitching - a worthwhile trade off in my view.
Gary is correct in his statement about the placement of the master stateroom, but as we all know, there's only so much room to be found on a boat. Moving the mast aft would make the main salon too small. One solution would be to combine the saloon and pilothouse, but then you lose the nature of the boat. I like separate pilothouses - they allow night time activity in the living spaces without compromising vision. Besides, assuming that the seatingf areas in both the salon and pilothouse are convertible, there are plenty of places for the crew to snooze when things get a little lumpy. I'd leave things just as they are.
Given the choice, I'd lose the paravanes in favour of active stabilsation. There is of course a pretty hefty price to be paid, but the problems of snagging and the dangers inherent in launching and retrieving the 'fish' make the additional invesment worthwhile.
After all that, I love the concept of your design - long, lean and slippery. Very nice

[duluthboats]

Ah Will, I think you’re attributing to me things that Mike posted. :D
Gary
PS Dose that mean you two agree on somthing.:eek:

[Willallison]

Oops - quite correct , sorry
ps - don't worry as soon as I've shown him the error of his ways, we'll agree on everyhting!
:p :D :p

[Tad]

Boy I'm into it now!

First off thank you Gary, Tom, Mike, and Will for your kind comments.

I'll try to take your comments in order but there may be some overlap.

Gary; you are correct, the wheelhouse is ladder central. There is one down forward, one down aft, and another up directly behind the helm chair on the starboard side. There is still room for an L seat & table to port but it's a high traffic area. If we remember she is designed around two people it gets less crowded.

Tom: Greetings and I'm glad your boat worked out as expected, that's what it's all about. Many thanks regarding your kind comments on recognizing my work.

The bulb doesn’t extend the waterline as such. It does extend very slightly forward under water, 3" on the PL46 and 6" on the PL56. These are minimalist bulbs, I call them "Squirrel Cheeks". The shape is veed on the bottom to ease re-entry and reduce slamming. My thought is that they will provide extra buoyancy to lift the low freeboard over big waves. I'm very leery of what might happen at 14 knots with anything larger. This one's effect on the bow wave will remain conjecture until we run the hull in a tank. Another problem with the large/long bulbs is anchor line hang-ups.

Mike: Thanks for your thoughtful commentary. The hull form is closer to a navel Frigate than a typical displacement passagemaker. As such she is designed to run efficiently at a higher speed/length ratio, a narrow band at 1.4-1.9. So she has fairly deep immersion at the transom and little rise to the bottom aft. The John Deere 4045 at 75HP will push her up to 11.5 knots at her designed weight of 51,000 pounds. A pair of 150 HP engines will push her up to over 14 knots.

Engine Placement; this is a big one and part of the reason for the design. I agree that if she were mine there would be a 6LW in a Plexiglas case in the middle of the main salon. However she is not my boat and my solution would not be acceptable to most folks buying a vessel of this type. Actually the 12,400 pounds of liquids is the major weight in this boat. One of the problems with light displacement hulls is lack of space for tankage. The space under the wheelhouse is full of fuel tankage. Water is under the sole aft. The engines and their gearboxes weigh 2000 pounds. The stern has lots of volume to damp pitching. The major idea was to remove the engines from the living space. I would fit a double window in the aft bulkhead so you could turn on the light and have a gander. The fact is most of these boats are used alongshore and most passages are two or three days. The ability to rebuild or change oil without disturbing the liveaboards has some merit.

The small twins are for a couple of reasons, the first is draft. The smaller props behind heavy skegs and in hull pockets will be far shallower than a single large wheel. This is a big deal in the Bahamas or the Mississippi. The second reason is redundancy, I have recently read of two incidents where wing engines were needed. These were both relatively new boats and the problems were not fuel related. Finally I have a hair-brained idea about using these small engines as generators as well as propulsion.

As there are only two crew, the forward stateroom would not be used at sea. The offwatch will sleep on the pilothouse seat or the settee in the saloon. The hull windows should be as strong as the hull, on my boat they will have storm covers of aluminum.

On dingys; The boom will take good management but they do work, all functions will be hydraulic. A deployable launching ramp would be great. Professional charter crews have all moved back to outboards because of lack of parts/service for waterjets in this vital piece of gear.

Will; If I was building one for myself I would have both flopper-stoppers and active fins. The fins work better the faster you go, the paravanes still work when the boat is stopped at anchor. Yes, handling the fish is a lot tougher than many expect.

Again, thanks all. See more on this in August PassageMaker Magazine.

All the best, Tad

[Willallison]

As suspected, there is rhyme and reason for all of your choices - and it just goes to show, there are many ways to skin a cat - and there's no such thing as the compromise-free boat.
I always look forward to reading PMM - more reason to do so now. Thanks for expalining your thinking to is Tad.

I see Tad's designs and article are featured in the latest issue of Pro Boatbuilder on page 58 (Feb/March 03) - when I flipped it open and saw the article I immediately remembered the image from reading this thread a long while back so I thought I would post in case anyone doesn't subscribe to pro boatbuilder, and to say congrats on a great article and drawings - now back to reading the article for any details I missed :)