Atkin "Ripalong"

michael pierzga said:
His Magellan Gulf Stream patrol vessel is a beautiful efficient craft.
Click to expand...
Beauty is evidently in the eye of the beholder. What I see above the deck at the first page of that pdf is a punch into the eye of this beholder...

Power efficient and seakindly - probably yes. I like the lines of the underwater hull. But spray chines look just a bit undersized.
 
The sheerline line of Paine's Magellan is elegant and the hull will move easily.

Always difficult to pull off an aesthetically pleasing, standing headroom , high visibility wheelhouse on a low free board boat, with its weight , machine room amidships and a low profile cabin top forward.. The high bulwarks almost completely hide the forward cabin roof...very elegant in profile..

All valuable details on a superior sea boat .

.Also Low freeboard boats are a joy to live with. Its the only thing I dont like about the Atkins boat...bit high sided with weight and windage high for my tastes. .

Dont really know anything about spray chines on a vessel like this. The description from the designer indicated spray chines to keep the wheelhouse windows dry. Paine hails from the land of cold water and the round bilge lobster boat. I assume she rides on her waterline trim when at work. I would trust his thoughts.
 
I like the shape of the hull . As for the rest , he kinda make nod at the patrol boat .
Thanks Micheal , there is a lot to think about there , Chine spray rail , and the shape of
bow.
 
Micheal, is that one of Irens boats in post #4 ? Hansome.
Steve.
 
As happens in many posts, the discussion has fragmented greatly. This is usually when a later poster introduces something off topic. In this case the OP did that with a first small cruising boat that is of old outdated design and then with a very modern large boat that is meant to be an ubber "look at me" blast around day boat of advanced picnic style. Not much similarity here other than they are both boats. What is the point?
 
tom28571 said:
As happens in many posts, the discussion has fragmented greatly. This is usually when a later poster introduces something off topic. In this case the OP did that with a first small cruising boat that is of old outdated design and then with a very modern large boat that is meant to be an ubber "look at me" blast around day boat of advanced picnic style. Not much similarity here other than they are both boats. What is the point?
Click to expand...


You are wrong. The topic has not fragmented. The original poster Frank asked ..." I am wondering if this hull form is still viable" . The answer is YES !!!!! Study Atkins approach to the problem. Hydrodynamics have not changed. Atkins approach is Viable and modern designers are using this approach to create low power efficient motorboats . Do not term classic as old fashion and modern as the way to go. Only study the plans and concepts. The goal is to see which interpretation suites your needs best.
 
michael pierzga said:
You are wrong. The topic has not fragmented. The original poster Frank asked ..." I am wondering if this hull form is still viable" . The answer is YES !!!!! Study Atkins approach to the problem. Hydrodynamics have not changed. Atkins approach is Viable and modern designers are using this approach to create low power efficient motorboats . Do not term classic as old fashion and modern as the way to go. Only study the plans and concepts. The goal is to see which interpretation suites your needs best.
Click to expand...


This is what happens when you decide what the response will be without actually understanding what is posted.
 
Michael will you answer the questions (if you can, which I doubt) or continue to prove how clueless you actually are. You literally don't know what you are talking about do you? I've been intentionally picking on you to see what you can justify, what you actually know, but clearly you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Atkins approach is Viable and modern designers are using this approach to create low power efficient motorboats .
Click to expand...
You are absolutely kidding yourself and everyone else that do not recognize how little you know. Hell, the convoluted US Navy series 50 tests prove better then this particular design. Then again you'd know all about this in your "studies" of Billy's early work, right? Can't answer again Michael? Imagine that . . .
 
No Frank, the design is full of issues, all shaped based and though at the time, considered about average, now a gross disservice to the powerboat in general. It's not even close to what you want, but then again Michael can describe why it's such a good design (in his uninformed opinion) can't you? Michael can't even tell you why the design doesn't meet series 50 standards, let alone why it's a poor powerboat shape, but he keeps posting as if he does know . . .
 
Without elaboration of the design brief, categorizing designs as "poor" really doesn't help much. What is an excellent design for one intended usage may be sub-par for a different role. "Powerboat" covers way too much territory, first define the size of vessel and its intended domain, then you can make meaningful comparisons.
 
I'm not sure what some of the fuss is about.

If the boat will still comfortably do 25mph with 100 hp, and that's what someone wants out of a boat, I'd say the hull form is still 'viable'... assuming they like the boat otherwise.

But if PAR is correct (and I'm certainly not betting against him), that's pretty much its reasonable limits. If someone wants more performance, they should look elsewhere.
 
Here is the link to "Ripalong" . I dont think it is the shape I would want today because I would want a higher cruising speed , but the area and kind of use would be the same . http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Cruisers/Ripalong.html
I want a gentile transition to planing speed , so no full length deep vee . I like the round bilge , but a chine half way back might be necessary for lift .
Inboard motor so I do not have to provide buoyancy for an out board,and have an ugly *** end. As stated before a 4 cylinder turbo diesel of about 150 HP , Possibly a converted VW engine . Disp. less than 4000lb and not more that 8'6" wide preferably 8' max .

It should have a reasonably sharp entry, but be buoyant enough so that it does not bury its head in 3' seas and come to a stop but not so buoyant that it is hard riding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making any potentially dangerous or financial decision, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.

    • Back
    Top