Affordable seaworthy cruiser

Greetings,

Frank, you are right that the AS55 will be more unstable at 180 degrees with the added height, but at 90 degree knockdown the more shallow hull will re right more quickly because the higher hull as more of a tendency to stay on its side.

As far as Tanton's take on the AS series they are extremely wide for overall lenghth and would'nt be half the sea boat that the AS39 is, being a novice, opinion would be that the Tanton version is really the unsafe boat that would rattle you to death.

You are right that the AS55 is similar to jubilee. Do you think Bolger gave it high displacement to help it be more seakindly?

Pierre, the sea is violent and will humble the proud, its not the intention here to take it lightly.

 

Another question: The box keel seems appropriate for ocean boats but there has to be somebody out there thats a proponent of the Bolger idea of the "shallow boat frustrating the sea and skirting away from waves". This is means the boat doesnt trip on its keel and adjusts itself to the sea rather than fighting with it.

If this is true, then wouldnt it be better to have inside ballast rather than the keel? Off course this means more ballast or less sail area to compensate.

Peace.

 

This would no be so on a heavily ballasted boat , and the high side would continue to provide buoyancy. So the cob can move farther out and increase the effect of the ballast . I may be completely wrong here , but that is the way I see it. Someone please let me know if this is not correct.

 

just joined, catching up with these interesting threads... 'scuse me? 50'x8'4"? me, i prefer a 3:1 loa:beam ratio. 6:1? are you serious? the 'ark' thing is more about intellectual stimulation rather than religious belief, right? have i joined the wrong website?? soooo many questions....

 

Who knows if not you?

But sure you found one of the most lunatic threads.

 

"Who knows if not you?" yes, quite so.....

i have to say every thread i've looked at seems quite lunatic... maybe it's just me

 

Probably............

 

You should do well here in that you have quickly recognized which threads/posters are only loosely connected to the real world.

The ratio of sane to lunatic threads is poorer than normal at the moment.

I have been registered since July and have picked up some very useful information since then. Also been amused by some of the off the wall ideas.

Unless you have unlimited time I would avoid Origami steel yacht construction and Climate change.

There is the full spectrum of people here from expert professionals and amateurs to others who appear several sandwiches short of a picnic. Some in the latter category are trolls who work at being obtuse.

 

Why flat bottom and vertical sides?
Is that more affordable?

 

ms.lay, welcome
Most threads here are just a break from work I guess...

 

Greetings,

Raggi_Thor & Ms. Lau, the reasons for flatbottom and verticals sides have been addressed as well the 6-1 beam ratio, read the rest of the tread.

Maybe the first post was started out the wrong way but there is a reason the ancients used long boats without being excessively high throughout history. People like Cook and Tazman would have had the same type of ships, its just that during thier time the technology was lost as to how to build ships with the porportions of the ark. The efficient and seaworthy cargo carriers of today have similar proportions to the ark which proves or at least should make you wonder why they did God have Noah build the ark with those ratios.

Again it possible to use this proportion whether using a small design like the international 110 or a supertanker, and the purpose here is to make efficient use of design for Jubilee and its requirements.

 

Greetinngs,

This is about the best description found of what the ark looked like.

 

what did everything eat after the flood?

 

Fish?

 

the grass eaters too?