Affordable seaworthy cruiser

Gerr doesn't have time to look at my design. How do you know? Assume nothing & ask his advice.

Yachting was once humorously described as standing under a cold shower tearing up the equivalent of $100 bills. There are worse things. Professionals get their sums wrong as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6TYQZd0HPs

 

All that. And isn't the boat this thread is about a sail boat? But even if it has become a powerboat (wouldn' surprise) Sandpiper has nothing to do with this (or other GWTA designs) design.

 

Four & a half years ago, on this thread, I posted a link to a website about Noah's Ark, which I hoped GWTA would find useful.There are a number of images of a vessel that resemble the description of the ARK.

http://worldwideflood.org/files/includes/images/ark-hull_form-prop_hull_form_files-nark-009.jpg

http://worldwideflood.org/files/includes/images/ark-hull_form-prop_hull_form_files-nark-003.jpg

http://worldwideflood.org/files/includes/images/ark-hull_form-prop_hull_form_files-nark-006.jpg

http://worldwideflood.org/files/includes/images/ark-hull_form-prop_hull_form_files-nark-004.jpg

http://worldwideflood.org/ark/hull_form/prop_hull_form.htm

Tim Lovett has assembled a veritable cornucopia of details which are fun to read.

http://worldwideflood.org/jsmenu/full_menu.htm

Check out Mount Ararat. http://worldwideflood.org/default.htm

 

If I remember right, the design is based on the length to width ratios of the Ark, apparently they being divinely righteous numbers for a boat and proven to survive the worst of any ocean tempest.

The construction details are mostly what GWTA believes are a good, cheap way to build a good, strong boat, gathered through extensive reading and taking some advice from those who've 'been there, done that'.

The time to construct was vastly misunderestimated, probably the cost of construction also, but that is something that most people do in these type of projects. I know if I double the time and cost of my best estimations of just about any project I undertake, it is usually still far below what actually is required.

I would like to see how it does in the water. I would recommend investing in time and money the bare minimum needed to float the boat and do some sea trials. A deck, motor, fiberglass and primer on the hull, concrete blocks or something (secured from movement) to simulate the weights and locations of water/fuel tanks, machinery, people etc (people themselves might be a good, easily shift able weight). Masts, rigging etc I would wait on to see if the hull can in fact accommodate the extra weight aloft and structural demands.

 

Yes, Pericles I have seen those sites you mention.

Sam, That is the approach I plan to use but either way, once its gone that far might as well complete the outfit (hate to say the following) but geared more to river/coastal use if its not as capable as I hope.

Peace

 

GWTA,

You could consider the addition of a pair of amas & create a trimaran. Then you could leave out the concrete & even do away with the box keel. It would not have to be a streamliner. Here are just a few examples.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Dragonflyfolded.jpg

http://www.charterworld.com/news/wp...05/42m-Trimaran-Motor-Yacht-Hang-Tuah-Bow.jpg

http://www.sunreef-yachts.com/yachts,51,trimaran-210-layout-03.jpg

http://www.boatbookings.com/temp/big_luxury-trimaran-main2478.jpg

http://img.nauticexpo.com/images_ne/photo-g/trimaran-express-cruiser-33511-7042763.jpg

 

I like unusual....

http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/24494/ppuser/54771

 

Rurudyne,

Very unusual design of yours. Just a thought, but if the paddle wheels were shrouded, the amas could be mounted on those shrouds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS_Waverley

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=P...waverley-nice-sunny-day-for-trip.html;800;502

 

Thanks.

Yeah, I'd put together some DelftShip files, including the immediate previous version of that boat, where the wheels were in proper houses and they did looked nice, especially with the red or blue rimmed yellow sunrise grills (of varied complexity) that I'd included on some of them, almost sleek even from the sides, but the amas then completely hid the wheels from sides. That seemed at the time I made that particular model like hiding a pretty steam engine rather than using it for eye candy. /Engineer Alert!

This had me thinking fenders within the truss framework rather than shrouds might be the way to go. Particularly since I'm also interested in feathering wheels.

Probably should have mentioned the fenders....

 

I took a return trip on the P S Waverley from central London along the River Thames to Southend Pier about 42 years ago. The ship was only 26 years old then. There are viewing windows below decks, so passengers can watch the feathering action of the paddles & the triple expansion engine.

 

HDPE might be a very good idea. I will think about some tests on my boat. I suspect it might have fallen into the list of 'banned' substances for racing, being listed as a resistance limiting coating. As such, it may simply not have come to the attention of cruisers, not as much money in cruising paints, especially ones with a limited life.

I think it's available as a kind of paste as a mold release agent too, so could be easy to apply.

 

If I remember correctly, the Dutch East Indiamen were also built to the same proportions as the Ark, for the same divinely inspired reasons, and they were extremely successful load carrieing, and fast too.

Adding Armas to an otherwise very narrow hull is a good solution, be it power or sail. The central hull needed for such an arrangement should be quite a bit narrower than a 'normal' monohul, and I think the changeover point is about 8:1. Lower L/B ratios, 4:1 etc are good for monohull's, whilst higher is usually reserved for multihulls. Having said that, some destroyers, and even clipper ships, had very high L/B ratios, but they also had a deep draft.

 

....the Dutch East India Ships were standardized after the year 1740. They were 140ft in length to 38ft beam. Giving beam to length ratio of 3.7 to 1 so fatter by far.

The clipper ships were the apex of fast cargo carrying sail design and they were much slimmer in their ratios.

There's no sweet spot in the biblical arks dimensions that relates to optimal design even for a dumb barge.

 

At another board I post on, one with a religious emphasis, one of the things that some people will lay into each other comes up with discussions of the trinity. One fellow (not a fan of the idea) responded to the suggestion that different metaphors could be used by suggesting Moe, Larry and Curly.

I responded after the fashion some of the combatants employ: "Shempites and Curly Jovians are heretics."

This has been another truly random moment....

 

Thanks Mike.

Now I've looked it up, even the Cutty Sark was only 5.8:1, from hull measurements, rather fatter on the WL. Ie the WL length was much shorter than the deck (between perpendicular's), whilst the beam was fairley constant, deck to WL.

I didn't know the Dutch East Indiamen were standardized, are you referring to the Dutch ones, or the English ones?