Bolger/Hartog Sailing Research Vessel

Both Phuma and SJB have flat bottoms amidship but Phuma's ends are developed shapes which Phil began doing with his latter designs (although most owners of the original box boat A/S concept had just minor if any issues at all) however, I think Phuma was designed/built before his "advanced sharpie" period so this must be a transition which shows the high upswept bows minus the box keel he learned from the Japanese.

Considering the bottom being flat and looking at WL there seems enough draft to keep the boat settled in the water (think i read 146 tons-pretty hefty) however, to me it is very highsided and can be a big wind target, good thing raised areas are aft. Sails height maybe looks big compared to other boats but its low aspect here. Stability concerns would have to be addressed by looking at papers with calculations which should be made available.

If youre a problem solver, lil innovative and can work with your hands maybe upkeep costs would be bearable, very important if previous owner kept maintenance and you can just take over from there.

Angelique: that rig and style of boat are much latter ideas than when the 103 book was written. Thx for other info.

 

PAR, two different Bolger designs have gotten confused in this thread. The first is an ocean research vessel named Phuma. Bolger did the initial design and gave it design number 410. A designer name JP Hartog reworked the Bolger design and lengthened it. The builders, in consultation with Bolger and Hartog, then lengthened it again. As with any design that has been built there may have been other significant deviations from the plans.

The other design is an inter-island trader of about the same dimensions as the original design for Phuma, but as jmwoodring noted above the hull shapes have considerable differences, and there are other major differences.

 

From the post #1 link → About Phuma
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

‘‘ Dr. Gast worked with boat designer Philip C. Bolger in the early 1980’s on the preliminary design of Phuma producing Design #410 a 96.5’ length, 16’ beam, and 3.5’ draft leeboard motorsailer. Their goal was to design a vessel capable of a longer oceanographic cruise with a dozen students with easily handled sails, an easily driven hull, and the ability to access and traverse shallow bays and estuaries. Although there were subsequent changes to the Design #410, Dr. Gast was in contact with Mr. Bolger until Mr. Bolger passed away. Mr. Bolger’s preliminary design was redrawn in 1982 with the scantlings, details, and stability curves by Naval Architect J.P. Hartog at 116.5’ length overall, 16’ beam, 3.5’ draft, and 126.65 tons.​

Dr. Gast commenced construction in Samoa, California, near the Samoa Cookhouse. Peter Gast, Dr. Gast’s brother, a shipbuilder and machinist from Massachusetts where he worked for Eddy and Duff among others, did much of the construction spending five years on the project.​

During construction, several modifications were made subsequent to consultation with Mr. Bolger and Mr. Hartog including the addition of three stations amidships increasing the Length Overall to 128’, the replacement of the forward centerboard with a bow thruster, and other mechanical and hydraulic innovations. The bottom was plated wit 3/8” steel, the sides with 5/16” steel, and cabin with 1/4” steel plate. All surfaces were sealed and painted with Devoe Marine coatings. Phuma was launched into Humboldt Bay in 1991. ’’​

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Philip C. Bolger's early 1980’s design #410:

‘‘ 96.5’ length, 16’ beam, and 3.5’ draft leeboard motorsailer. ’’​

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Below the modifications in Bolger's design #410, prior to the Phuma built, that were done in consultation with Naval Architects, first Bolger himself, and later J.P. Hartog, who also in 1982 had redrawn the Bolger #410 plans and scantlings, details, and stability curves, according to the modifications from the Bolger and Hartog consultations:

‘‘ 116.5’ length overall, 16’ beam, 3.5’ draft, and 126.65 tons. ’’​

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What I read next -in my interpretation- is about the later and larger modifications that were made ‘‘subsequent’’ = ‘‘after’’ the consultations with the Naval Architects Mr. Bolger and Mr. Hartog, and it doesn't mention any NA involvement with the big modifications during construction, it only mentions that these modifications were made during the five years construction period . . . .

‘‘ During construction, several modifications were made subsequent to consultation with Mr. Bolger and Mr. Hartog including the addition of three stations amidships increasing the Length Overall to 128’, the replacement of the forward centerboard with a bow thruster, and other mechanical and hydraulic innovations. The bottom was plated wit 3/8” steel, the sides with 5/16” steel, and cabin with 1/4” steel plate. ’’​

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Phuma's construction started in 1986, four years after Mr. Hartog in 1982 had redrawn the Bolger #410 plans, and construction so far ran till launching in 1991.

 

BTW, about one of these during the build modifications...

‘‘ . . . the replacement of the forward centerboard with a bow thruster . . . ’’

Who ever wants to replace a forward centerboard with a bow thruster for sailing mode ?

 

Would the forward centerboard be important for lateral resistance when sailing? My initial thought was that it would act as a steering aid mostly, which the bow thruster would adequately substitute for.

PAR, I respect what you're saying about evaluating my experience level. While I'm not unfamiliar with the marine industry, the scope of a large vessel like this does present it's challenges. Still, if the vessel is currently adequately maintained, then a yearly or bi annual haul and zinc replacement could be affordable. The rest of the vessel could be finished out in a seaworthy, but minimalistic fashion. If the hull has been severely corroded and major plate replacements are already necessary, then the practicality of the project would vanish quickly.

 

Bolger and Hartog regarded the lateral resistance, that the forward centerboard would have provided when down, necessary for any up wind sailing, otherwise it wouldn't have been in the plans.

A lateral fixed board up front hinders any steering action when the board is down, and therefore it is the opposite of a steering aid.

The forward centerboard would have acted as an steering aid if it would have been steerable, and when already moving forward or backward, in that case it would not have been a forward centerboard, but a retractable bow rudder, which fixed in the center position also could have acted as a forward centerboard.

 

You can still look at Bruce Hallman's drawings on the Wayback Machine.

 

The post #1 topic boat Phuma is called Phouma there, at the right side, it may need to wait a bit for her to show up.

See also the thread; Tree species for a big mast → post #12 till #15 there is about this Phuma aka Phouma.

 

Some folks looked seriously at Phuma last winter. They decided against taking her on as underwater corrosion was significant. Poor quality (or application) paint was used over mill scale, bit of a mess.

 

We hauled the Phuma last year and the yard (Zerlang Marine Services) sand-blasted below the waterline to bare steel, fixed all plate issues, sand-blasted again and sealed with multiple layers of paint. There are some yard photos in a previous post. Dad (Dr. Gast) passed away last month, but the last time he visited the vessel was when she was hauled. We listed Phuma with Pacific Boat Brokers when we hauled her and have had significant interest. Dad worked with Bolger to design and build a seaworthy, easily driven vessel that could sail and enter shallow bays and estuaries. The Phuma could be completed by someone who needs such a vessel and the price is a fraction of what Dad invested. It would be great to see the completed vessel. I'll be glad to answer questions about the Phuma and can be contacted directly through the website RVPhuma.com.