Affordable seaworthy cruiser

Are you referring to the one being constructed in the posted photographs?

I claim no expertise but I found the constructive and critical comments about it's hull shape and construction to be credible.

What boat-design knowledge will we collectively gain when it's 'wet' and exhibits the predicted problems?

I for one, wish that he would start over based on the input that been suggested, then some benefit may yet be realized.

 

Sam,

You usually post garbage but that last sentence is true. Will try it out on Lake Erie and if it works as intended - good (although whether you call it faith or something else, I believe it will be more seaworthy than at least 90% of the boats at a marina, wouldnt be doing this if my thoughs were otherwise), if not, it will be limited to more benign waters and uses.

 

Tomas,

What constructive and critical arguements are you refering to?

 

This one for example:

Also, reading your response to Sam:

I am concerned for your safety. Please consider starting over with help from others with experience and knowledge.

At the very least, a serious weight-distribution/buoyancy review is needed just to ensure proper trim when it's launched and hopefully floating, let alone powered on Lake Erie.

Please review all the help that been offered and re-consider your construction plans. I mean no disrespect nor do I have any agenda other than concern based on the little knowledge which I posses.

 

Also, with the original post all that was mentioned according to Scripture was the three factors of length, height, width: thats it, tried to merge that as best I could into the design.

Sure, statements that sounded authoritative about design were made, those should have been stated more correctly as goals of the design - seaworthiness, cost effective componenents (affordable), efficient, and seakindly.

That was the intent and not to get all bellicose.

 

Tomas,

Technically the surfaces are not flat, all hull areas have bent stock in one direction. Not sure of whats meant by tight corners. Frame members are expected to join the bottom with the sides and additional heavy reinforcement at chines. Can you explain reason you suspect the design of those members would not function as a whole?

There is a fairly accurate displacement and Cob calculation I placed on drawing. Tried to locate all major weights close to Cob. Bouyancy at engine and stern was a major concern, those are widened at bottom along with more flare, keel displacement also figured in assisting in those areas.

 

Tomas,

Yes, I also think it will be wet forward, there is sufficient bouyancy at waterline but in hindsight shoud have added a slight bit more flare, more so because that is the conventional way it is done rather than a full and complete understanding of the reason why. Thought about lowering the tackle accesories and doing a Bolger bit by lowering them about 2' into the hull to reduce weight aloft. After watching dashews video of his sharp bow and protruding anchor catching waves and spray all over, made me think more about those areas and what can be done.

Looked outside this morning at boat and was wondering if forward area from sections 2'-6" to 8'-0" were lowered, what type of hatches or covering could be constructed to satisfactorily open and close while accessing that area. Like the idea of have solid sides while working there.

One good thing that is hoped for relating to sharp bow is maybe there will be less water grabbing the hull and making for less pitching and easier motion through the waves. The keel forefoot is now to be cutaway and full height of 5' is brought fwd in accord with .6 maximum height in relation to beam.

 

Even though this forum's membership is populated by many with expertise and experience, it is also an Internet forum of people with all of it's potential for judgmental commentary when one expresses strong religious beliefs, especially if it's mixed with technical topics as in this thread. I personally don't spend time insulting or ridiculing strangers in forums, particularly one with so much to offer. Please review the posts that offered technical input again. Ignore the others.

Again, my nautical knowledge is very limited and I've joined this forum to learn and expose my self to many ideas and stimulating discussions.

To answer you directly, I've never seen hull line examples like those pictured in your construction photos being proposed for negotiating bodies of water such as the great lakes, which are known for some challenging conditions. Those lines strike me as incompatible with your intended usage. At best, some modified version could be used to leisurely explore the quieter inland waterways like those found in France for example. Calm, slow and peaceful.

 

If its unfit to go to sea there are plenty of inland waterways to be enjoyed, will know when the antifoul meets the water.

 

There's nothing wrong with re-purposing one's efforts when they can be more effective elsewhere.

Inland waterways can be very enjoyable indeed.

 

I have no interest in the religious arguments but this appears to be bad design. The lack of any longitudinal structure other than the skin vaguely fastened to transverse frames runs counter to every successful boat ever built. But perhaps she could be salvaged with 2 layers of plywood over the whole thing, 2-3 layers of fiberglass, and big laminated external chine logs, clamps, and keel or bottom stringers, all bolted through to these frames (which doesn't look workable)....

 

I don't agree, historically we slowly replace religious explanations with factual models. Todays fundamentalist would be condemned as obviously counter scripture by earlier fundamentalist over some fairly pivotal cosmology in Genesis.

The Ark of Noah as a wooden ship is as structurally flawed as a flat earth. But now the earth is round , heaven has necessarily been moved somewhere nebulous and the Ark used substantial amounts of Bronze and Iron because it had to to hold together because it was real !!.

I think that will be good enough to introduce some sense in the warping of naval architecture by GW for anyone else following his design paradigm.

And that hull being built needs more substantial framing some diagonal bracing and a decent keelson, and robust chine and sheer strakes. Again we come back to hull girder strength GW !

 

Tad, thanks for taking an interest in this project.

Some background. Frames you see will remain, strips are 11/16" x 3" glued and screwed. Next step planned was to staple and glue two layers 1/2" x 1.5" yellow pine strips of a better quality than currently shown, running 45 degree each way. Finish with 6oz for abrasion (2-3 layers at chine). Is that enough longitudinally?

Plan for chine was layer strips tightly inside between the frames for an overall (log) thickness of 4"x4".

If this is insufficient, would attaching additional 1/2" longitudinal layer outside at chine and upto 6" boot stripe work?

 

Mike,

Scripture teaches the earth is round.

"It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth" Isaiah 40:22 KJV

"He stretched out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing" Job 26:7 KJV

 

Believe pdf is allowed as its only for reference purposes.

Interesting because of very similiar dimensions.