A maximalist outboard cruiser, why not?

Have you looked at something like Bolger's Wyoming then? It is designed to carry two engines -- a main and a spare -- and, being much lighter than the Illinois, seems targeted to cruising rather than living aboard. Bolger recommended a high thrust 50 HP motor for that boat. Given that he wrote that her displacement would be 10,000# (though that could be weight and not displacement when floating on her lines ... it wasn't 100% clear) that's probably power for planing and not just displacement speeds, since it amounts to 1HP per 200# of boat.

I recently looked over a website giving fuel consumption for different OBs at it had most gas OBs pegged around 10 HP per hour per gallon of fuel burned.

Just for funsies played around with the basic arrangement in DelftShip and an enlarged take on it (64' long with a 9' beam' forward cockpit, cabin with lower headroom, followed by a single full headroom cabin twice as long as the Wyoming's, and just the open cockpit aft) that seems like it should have roughly 280 sf of interior space ( which represents roughly 64% of the water plane area). Displacement would be roughly 13,500#. It's actually quite attractive, in a with a long enough waterline even a Bolger Champlain wouldn't look boxy kinda way. A 50 HP motor would probably be dequate for it as well even to some modest level of planing performance.

 

Now this is MY kind of boat. Not perhaps as long as Bolgers Wyoming, but in the same class. Rather than the 'big/little' motors Bolger specified, I would mount a pair, either capable of cruising the rig, and both giving it some ability to plane. One motor could be 'down' and in use, whilst the other was 'up' resting.
Parker's Commuter series is another inspiration, long and lean.

I think the forward cockpit, for mooring, anchoring, etc is a good point, and would consider mounting a small OB up there for maneuvering. Actually, mounting one similar sized OB at each end might work well, the trimaran tour boats on the Sein River (Paris, France), use exactly this arrangement.

Regardless, there would be an upholstered seat over the OB's at the back, to isolate the sound as much as possible.

Let's assume for a moment the "Loop" is the goal, would this 40-60' LOA, X 8-9' wide single story (standing headroom only), vessel be so wind-rode as to be unmanageable?

 

The 7-1 LBR 64' cruiser I've presently got in DelftShip (again, for funsies, I'm not gonna win the Lotto any time ever) is giving me a transverse metacentric height of about 11' above the waterline. The 6-1 version has about 14'. Even with roughly 7' of standing headroom in the main cabin, with the cabin sole 6" above the water line, that seems to leave a fair amount of initial stability.

Like the Wyoming these are flat at the base of the transom. Unlike the Wyoming they are V-bowed with a warped bottom and should not pound at the moderate speeds desired. Still good for use in sheltered waters or a calm day but probably not a bit good in a following sea. May need a proverbial 40 Acre Field (flooded) to turn around in.

In DelftShip: one of the effects of the bottom I'm playing with relative to an actual flat bottom is that as that the buoyancy is more concentrated to the middle rather than equally spread out, and this causes DelftShip's metacentric calcs to like the shape. The uniformly "deep" Wyoming might have less snap roll.

 

Style should count , think of this in light weight modern construction and a fly weight car transplant diesel,,

Or an outboard in a well under the vast aft sofa .

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/at...ettiest-motorboats-photos-please-stroller.jpg

Already has the bow cockpit and vast stern deck,,

 

She's pretty alright!

I believe it was the Mundoo's designer who opined that a little flare forward and tumblehome aft can make a difference (even if the mid section is still a box in cross section). I'm not one to disagree. Thing is these large "instant" boats consume a lot of now expensive plywood (Bolger said it would take about 450 sheets of 1/2" plywood to build Illinois -- at three times Wyoming's displacement -- giving her a 5.5" thick bottom in the middle) so you may not be saving a much in materials cost building that way compared to, say, strip construction.

 

Excellent information. I'm assuming the higher metacentric height gives a jerky short roll motion.

These boats will turn like a 'jet' boat, lots of skid etc. I would consider a suitable daggar board, somewhere in the forward area to increase longitudinal stability, especially in maneuvering, following seas, or cross wind conditions. Perhaps DelftShip might show where and how big.

I, for one, would accept a flat bottom, if it pounds, slow down. Perhaps a bit less practical here in the PNW, but it works. Having said that, I would prefer the twisted, or warped bottom, as you describe from your DelftShip experience. It tends to look better, and is not a lot harder to build.

One issue might be, the flat bottom version will allow a much wider variation in load, ie 50hp for 'light' load, and 300hp for 'heavy' load, as somebody stated on this forum.

As far as build is concerned, I might consider single layer diagonal planking, Cedar or Doug Fir, covered with a thin plywood skin. The diagonal planks would have little attempt at being waterproof in the classic sence. The thin plywood, and fiberglass covering being the actual waterproof layer. As long as the diagonal planks are fairly narrow, they should be stable enough.
Note; probably single diagonal planking for the side, and double diagonal for the bottom.

Keep the ideas rolling, this could be a cool impractical boat.

 

Excellent looking boat, do the lines exist?

Tumble home is easy enough with ply, as long as it's a conic section, ie the longitudinal plan view of the section is a straight line. True flair at the bow really needs a 3D surface, and this could be combined, or faired into, a straight flat side. I believe this was often done with wooden sport fishermen, including one designed by Phill Bolger.

Certainly, if single layer diagonal planking were used for the sides, forward planks could be tapered and then 'sprung' to the requisite double curve. This precludes the plywood covering, but something could be worked out.

 

Not sure if I should call it "impractical" but some (all) of you should think about a power catamaran.

You can see my thoughts on it here, based on a talk I gave at the Port Townsend Wooden Boat Festival a couple of years ago. At least read the article, if only to consider all the options and then reject the concept.

http://sailingcatamarans.com/index....0-introdection-to-the-skoota-power-catamarans

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

 

Just skimming the article at the moment. This paragraph made a lot of sense to me.

"I don't like maintaining engines so I prefer outboards. They are lightweight, reliable, self contained and keep the engine noise and smell out of the accommodation. The new fuel injected ones are as efficient as diesels and you can take them to a mechanic for service or repair, not the other way round. You need fewer seacocks and hull fittings, so there is less chance of leaks. In fact on our boat we have no skin fittings at all, for not only do we have outboards but we also have a composting toilet made by C-head, and an excellent buy. We don't even have any bilges, so have no need for a bilgepump. Our insurers think we have a safe boat as they know the most common claims are for engine failure and hull leaks, or even sinking."


One thing that didnt surface in your article was what it actually cost to have the Skoota professionally built.

I catamaran is essentially two boat hulls - and that doubles the build complexity, finishing etc.

Another point I am curious about ", there's a wooden one" - have you done any in other than plywood ?

 

Actually, I like the idea of power cats or tris, and I've read up a bit on the stabilized monohull concept (among the few things in my gallery is a paddlewheel take on this last: I figure that the SMH might work well to overcome some of the known issues with side-wheelers and possibly complement their strengths). I've also read/seen videos about your Skoota which looks like a fun boat.

This is my "having a dream" stage of things.

On the positive side it doesn't involve painting mustaches on all the advertisements.

 

My talk was very popular and I had a good response. Some people had to stand in the corridor to hear it.

At the end of this page you can see a quote from the builder of our Skoota

http://sailingcatamarans.com/index.php/designs/6-powercats/264-skoota-28

The Skoota 20, 24,28 are all built in plywood, but the Skoota 36 can be built in ply or foam sandwich

Richard Woods of Woods Designs

www.sailingcatamarans.com

 

Thanks for that - found it.


"Labor at $40.00 a hour at 1700 hours $68,000
without engines and accessories and paint a grand total of $84,867.00
this will include the filling and faring and glassing of the boat.

A complete boat will be around $125,000
You can contact Josh at turnerjoshman@yahoo.com"

1700 hours without painting/engine and gear installation is a years full time work by a professional builder.

Another ~ $50,000 for paint, engines and equipment.

For a 28ft plywood boat, that's a big project.

 

The USD125,000 included engines/tanks/steering/basic electronics and interior fit out

our engines cost USD3000 each including delivery, steering was about USD600

In comparison the Aspen 28 powercat, also built in the PNW costs $218,600.00, but is not so economic to run as a Skoota

http://www.aspenpowercatamarans.com/pages/PricingC90.html

RW

 

$68,000 in labor? Score one advantage for having absolutely no life and a big back yard?

 

"Excellent looking boat, do the lines exist?"

Always a great question when you find a boat of your dreams.

MIT ( MA) has a huge file as does the Mystic museum (CT).

They both charge a modest sum to duplicate plans .

But looking at the plans list is FREE.