Lifelong dream plans L.F. Herreshoff/Cherubini44 lines

100% legal ? Knowing how the legal profession thrives on "grey areas", I would not be so sure.

 

Thank You B.B. What is most important for my children takes priority over all.

 

I will give Dave Cherubini a call and see how he feels about it. He may even sell me a copy of the plans and the rights to build one.

 

It's very unlikely Dave will sell you plans to the 44 or 48. What he did with these designs, is take cues from well known designs and whittle into a revised version, on the new volume he could manage, using modern building techniques. Ticonderoga (one of the boats' he used to as a base line for his hull model) would have preformed very well, as a new materials and engineered build, but not using the original lines. The original lines for Ticonderoga would have way too much volume and would be very "burdened" is used with modern materials and methods. Simply put, if you high jack Tioga's (or Bounty) lines, but built her with modern materials, she'd need to be way over ballasted , just to pull her down to her 50,000 pound displacement. The trick and where the hydrodynamic skill and understanding comes in is knowing how to pair down the volume of the Tioga hull form, so she retains her abilities, yet at the appropriate volume, new materials and methods permit.

As far as copying lines, well you get a lot of heat over this tactic, particularly by those that have had their work stolen (like me) by folks suggesting just this approach. If you purchase plans, you can avoid this issue, plus have the hydro and engineering issue already worked out too.

I have a set of lines for both of these boats (all three counting bi Ti) and they're in the public domain, but, as mentioned, unless you do something about the volumetric aspects of a new materials and engineering build, she'll just be a burdensome knock off. The reason the 44 and 48 perform so well is the new hull shapes, though very similar to the base lines used, have been tweaked to take advantage of the weight savings a new method build brings to the table.

It would be nice if software could be "intuitive" enough to nurse maid a user through the process, but alas, none exists yet. This is true in regard to the hydro and engineering aspects of the project.

MIT will sell you plans for all three of the yachts. They will sue you if you attempt a knock off. FWIW, the Bounty is the better sailor of the 50'ers, abet with more draft.

 

http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?96375-L-Francis-h

 

It was my understanding that all of L.F. Herreshoff's designs were held by the Mystic Seaport Museum. Any of these plans can be had for next to nothing.

 

Plans vs construction docs are diff.

 

What is the difference???

 

B.B. what software do you work with ??

 

Think of a house. You can have blueprints of the rooms and walls but zero callouts for the structural contents, or the direction the floor and roof joists need to run. Now you can build a house that way but it will either come out crappy or you have to overbuild.

You can get floorplans of Falling Water. But you cannot get construction docs.



I used to work with Solidworks, Inventor and MSC's FEA software, but that was about 7 years ago (which is how old my still shrinkwrapped copy of Solidworks is on my shelf)

 

SW 2007? that may be of interest to me. I think that is the vintage of the copy I was learning on. Unopened? I would have to check on the license validity.

This discussion of intellectual property is important, but for the purposes of the OP the glaring mistake is taking a major difficult project and cutting the odds of success by a million to one.

You are a first time builder. The price of supported plans is THE BEST MONEY YOU WILL SPEND. I am not even saying you can't accomplish something (you don't realize the problem it is though). I am saying that doing it yourself to your own design will cut the resale value of the boat by many times the cost of plans, and that the cost of indecision time and mistakes are likely to again cost more than the plans.

 

I would support this 100%. Building your own boat is an exercise in wasting money no matter how you look at it but that didn't stop me and I don't see why anyone else shouldn't suffer as well.

HOWEVER designing your own boat when you've no clue about yacht hydrodynamics, the dynamic loadings different sea states and rigging load impose, etc etc, is somewhere between arrogant to the Nth level and utterly contemptuous of the embedded knowledge involved in a big design.

The smartest thing I did was to buy a set of plans from a designer who supported dummies building their first boats, and buying the plans to a boat that had been built multiple times before. I've had my trials & tribulations along the way but all of them have been due to ignorance or being too clever for my own good. I can see the end in sight now and I'm confident the thing will float the right way up *and* sail if I can do my bit.

Taken me 4 years of admittedly dilatory effort so far, in a dedicated building, 20m from my house, and I work on it whenever I please (or not) as I only do consulting work for outside dollars. My boat is maybe 1/4 the displacement of what you're planning.

How much life & money do you want to spend in pursuit of your ultimate dream of designing *and* building a boat?

Buy some plans and build if you're determined to do it. Have fun along the way. But get over the 'design' phase along with copying a known design and thinking it'll all be good. It won't. It'll lead to many, many tears.

PDW

 

License Should be valid - why would it be expired?

 

subir foto


The Cherubini is all looks and no function. Form and function is most important.

Look at the works of the French designer Claud Graf before you proceed.

 

You've obviously never been aboard the 44 or 48 Michael. Very comfortable and capable underway.