Bolger 50' Wyoming into trimaran

ASM. I don't have any experience with the Wyoming but I do have experience with Australian oyster punts. These are commonly around 7.6 metres long and 2.5 metres wide, and like Wyoming have a flat bottom and vertical sides.



These boats are extremely stable. They often have cranes mounted on them to haul up racks of oysters and to offload the racks back at the base. These cranes are rated for around 300kg. That should give you some idea of the stability.

As other have advised, I think you would be better off building the Wyoming basically as Bolger drew it. The stability should be more than adequate for the boat's intended use. If you specifically want a swimming platform that could be incorporated as part of the main hull.

 

Sorry, but do you have to say something more than funny little notes?

There ist someone who is asking serious questions in this thread and a lot of people are trying to be helpful.

Other people are experimenting with new ideas and try to put them into reality. If they share their results with us, the better for us all. Doing this without the budged of Sponsors or other institutions is, in my eyes, very honorable. Who cares about the optics when a conceptual prototype is working well?

Grreeetings from the North Sea Coast, Michael

 

Luckystrike, you are so right..... the trimaran as shown in the pic is a very good example of an idea made to reality by someone dedicated. I think (maybe I am wrong) the idea was to stick with a simple design so it could be built without too many hours and money, correct ? If I only had the time and space i would do the same.

As for the trimaran try of the Wyoming, thanks for all your comments. You are all right in the sense that changing a good Bolger design is not the way to go.... it was a good designer so should be nothing wrong with it. However, the simplicity of the hull was one of the main reasons and making a wider mid/aft section for outside recreation (yes with only small short outriggers) , maybe even changing the superstructure design was the thought I was having. Additional stability above the alredy existing one is an extra bonus and for sure helps to get the misses on board and some other non-boaters...

 

I disagree with the idea of bringing boneheaded ideas to fruition. Any reasonably skilled designer would immediately have issues with the above trimaran. Just because you have an idea, doesn't necessarily mean you should take it farther from shore then you can swim back to . . . my point is you should run the math, before you feel the heat of your concoction boiling.

 

Dear Par,

I agree with you that you should be able to swim back to shore with a floating concept and you should know what you are doing (inclusive the mathematics) if you go offshore.

But what is to be said against experimenting with boats or eqiupment? In my eyes nothing! If you are working careful and responsible you only risk your own money and time. My first design was a windsurfboard and I made it at the age of 17. OK, this is a very simple example of design but it was very successfull one and a very satisfying feeling to go out on the water with it and see it working. I'am sure the designer/builder of the small wooden trimaran on the picture has the same feelings with his boat. Even if it has some drawbacks. And who cares? Nobody will be hurt.

Today's biggest problem is, that everybody can draw a hull with freeship without any problems. Lot's of people think that this is all the work to be done before building. Perhaps this is the reason why we (professional designers as well as skilled amateurs) are faced with so many weirdly ideas here on the forum.
In pre-computer times things were easyier, because drawing the hull was one very difficult step in boat design that frightend the amateur designer and stopped him from going further ... or forced him to learn more before continuing.


Do you know if Phil Bolger had a classic designer`s education or did he learn his job by himself? I'am sure some of his designs will not behave well on the water.

What interests me is ... how does a professional designer feel if his design has major design errors? The two 50 footers "Actual" and "Crepes Whahoo" both broke their bows in the atlantik. "Prince de Bretagne" lost one of it's floats. If I had the responsibility for the design I would have serious problems to sleep well in this case.

Grreeetings from the North Sea Coast, Michel

 

So how about one of a lighter weight version of Goldcoast's 50 ft wave piercing displacement hulls cut down vertically to maybe 24 inches with maybe a 20 hp outboard and simple outriggers for short island hops @ maybe 15 kts here in the Caribbean?

 

Lucky... exactly what I mean, a little trial and error based on one's feelings and some backed up by calculations as well. That's how a lot of people will start if they do not have the means to pay proffesional designers or simple want to experiment and just like the fact of building and finding out ! A lot of projects, not only boatbuilding, is because of the building, right ? Once a project is finished do the people sit back, enjoy it and wait another 15 years to start a new one ? Guess not....

Warren, interesting idea... though centre hull a bit too narrow for good accommodation, the outriggers you drew look like two thick plates glued together and have a V shape cut/sanded on one side. If one uses a thick core (like foam 100 mm) you might get enough bouyancy to be used as an outrigger since for the Wyo-trio one does not need too much from the outrigger.....

 

Goldcoast built a quick model that seemed to work pretty well.

And they already have the hull mold and data from the cats already using it.

There's only room for canoe type seating with benches for two.

The amas are two slabs of 1 inch foam wrapped in 12oz e glass which they agreed may need to be thicker, but as you state the rolling forces are pretty low.

Problem is the $37,000 plus motor price tag.

 

Dear ASM,

yes, thats it in the question of experimenting. It's for the fun of it. But thats only interesting on the small scale where costs and time are moderate. If you want to build a 50 footer like the Whio, the experiments should stop and give way to a professional design. Just to save the price of the plans you should not design on your own. Later on you will save a lot more money because of the mass of experience included in the plans.

I think you still want to have a Motor Trimaran on the Whio base. Lets say like this ... in my eyes you are trying to add a second pair of wings to an airbus to make a biplane-airliner out of it.

Its not neccesary. If you want to have motor powered multihull you have to have a very slim mainhull, much slimmer than the Whio, ending up with less accomodation than the spartan design of Whio.

Experimenting is a wonderful thing, but you can't switch off the physics.

Grreeetings from the North Sea Coast, Michael

 

But, if one adds very thin and barely touching surface floats, they would reduce the wave-making, wouldn't they?

Probably not a budget-friendly modification, but any improvement of stability and comfort on waves is always a good thing.

 

Yep, you could also just use a well placed skirt or wing, but why on such a unique craft. It's not displaying any bad manors, nor does it require such a modification. In conclusion, I'll stand on the original comments of "playing" with a well founded design as the work of foolishness and inexperience, if for no other reason then they don't know why they shouldn't. It would be different if every Wyoming owner complained of her roll moment or tenderness, then addressing this "issue" as justification, but if your only excuse is "well why not" then maybe these people should work in elevator design or maybe aircraft and see how well their "tinkering" is received.

This isn't meant as a harsh rebuke, but a notice that boats place people in an unnatural environment and a certain understanding must be assumed. Flying along at 30,000 feet or riding along at 100 feet or sitting comfortably, farther from shore then you could ever hope to swim back to, are inherently dangerous things. A catastrophic failure means you might or might not be able to find the bodies for identification. In this vain, I think fooling around with sound, well founded 50' designs by novices is to be wholly discouraged.

 

Why shall they reduce the wavemaking? Whyo is designed to make just small waves to make high speeds possible on canals and other crowded areas. Does anybody has read the design comments from Phil Bolger?????

Very thin and barely touching floats do nothing for stability as they deliver no dynamic and just little static lift.

What they do is adding wheight, air drag, some water resistence, building time and lots of money (during the building and later in the use) too.

If Whyo really needs additional stability (what even the professional here don't think) it would be more effective to add dampening foils than outriggers.

Grreeetings from the North Sea Coast, Michael

 

Just came across this thread, while looking for info on wyoming. Kinda seems like someone did something similar:

http://solarboatchronicles.com/

Certainly designing beams, floats, or structure for the main hull is not difficult for anyone who has built a tri or seen one during the build. The mainstrength bulkheads for even the sailing designs are not all that crazy. Normally a bulkhead about the same strength as the main hull, with a lot of glass tabbing. There is that idea that the greats who went before, did some hydro, stability calcs, or FEA, though normally they did not.

 

I love it, you have captured the essence of many of the newcomers concerns - and offered the reasoned solution

+1 would be an understatement

 

outriggers added will only be there to get some more stability and additional recreation space outside.

Simply build it larger if you want a roomaran.