Bolger/Hartog Sailing Research Vessel

About Phuma http://www.rvphuma.com/about-phuma.html

Phuma was originally drawn up by Phil Bolger, but west coast designer JP Hartog flushed out and finished the design that was built. Both of the designers are now dead, as well as the original owner and builder.



The vessel seems to have an extremely shallow draft and large LWL to Beam ratio. The drive train seems minimalistic and there are provisions for a sailing rig, though no leeboards seem to be present.
Sort of a cross between a cargo ship and a sailing barge?

Can anyone here contribute some insight to the strengths and weaknesses of this design, constraints and limitations? Thoughts? What sort of stability would this vessel have and what bodies of water could it operate in?

Phil Bolger was known for his sometimes radical work, with emphasis on practicality and efficiency.

I am interested in this vessel precisely because of its unique attributes, but it would be folly to operate her without a thorough understanding of the idiosyncrasies sure to be present.

 

Just from looking at the drawing:
It is supposed to have leeboards but they are not present in the photo.
There seems to be a small centreboard placed very far forward.
The drive appears to be a (electric/hydraulic?) motor mounted in the rudder, which is attached to a very large skeg.
The skeg seems to take away all advantages of the shallow hull.
The hull seems to have a nearly flat bottom and sharp chines but I can't see how the chines blend at the bow and stern - side elevation shows rounded forefoot and stern.
I can't tell from the drawing but the skeg/rudder is possibly a lifting arrangement (the worlds biggest outboard?) guessing from some of the blurred lines, but that would give back the advantage of the shallow draught.

 

Alan, the skeg can apparently be lifted and lowered hydraulically. The drive is hydraulic as well. Also a bow-thruster has been substituted for the forward centerboard.

 

A few more pictures

 

Other than the lifting rudder/propeller contraption (which would be very interesting to know how its setup) it appears to have typical large freighter ship lines.

Rather than starting a new thread and since this is Bolger related was wondering if anyone can identify this design. It looks like Tahiti or Fiji but there are differences.

Bolger yahoo groups has been very quiet lately and Bruce Hallmans lists and isometric drawings are not available anymore.

 

I asked about Pharma on the WoodenBoat Forum in 2012 Eureka California Unique Boat - What Is It? http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?150643-Eureka-California-Unique-Boat-What-Is-It and received a reply from the builders son:

The link is to the same website as the link in the first post in this thread.

 

Without the later modifications by Hartog there is much the same dimensions, resemblence, and purpose as Bolger's "Sir Joseph Banks" written about in BWAOM.

 

Hydraulic ↓
For sale: Phuma → Power

‘‘ - - Engine: Detroit 6-92 285 hp diesel

Reduction gear: Hydraulic
Shaft: Hydraulic
Hydraulic pumps: Rexroth AA4V - → - Maybe from the Bosch Rexroth AA4VG (Series 32) ?
Propeller: 3 blade, 31 x 36 - - - - - - ’’​

From the post #1 link → About Phuma

‘‘ Engine Room, Steering, and Hydraulics​

The vessel is driven by a 285hp Detroit diesel 6-92 with a Twin disk transmission powering a Rexroth AA4V hydraulic pump. The skeg, rudder, propeller, deck crane, and windless are all hydraulically powered by the freshwater cooled 6-92. The engine only has 68 hours! Also in the engine room are the gel cell batteries, four Hart inverters, redundant fuel filters, Debug fuel decontaminator, pre-luber and transfer pump, Airmar echo sounder, Side scan sonar, diesel water heater (new, not installed), and day tank for the galley stove.​

The skeg, rudder, and propeller are mounted on a steel column that can be hydraulically raised and lowered, increasing the depth about 4’. This provides additional lateral resistance as well as providing clean water for the propeller, increasing efficiency, while not sacrificing the shallow water capabilities. The hydraulically driven propeller, mounted on the trailing edge of the rudder, is turned by a hydraulic motor mounted inside the rudder providing outboard motor-like maneuverability. Combined with the bow thruster, the vessel can be maneuvered in very tight quarters. The steering and motor controls are housed in a control box on an electrical cord enabling the helmsman to maneuver the vessel from anywhere in or on the pilot house, or on the forward bridge deck. This is very useful when performing cabled in water oceanographic sampling and docking. Manual steering components are included, but not installed. On deck a hydraulic Tico Marine 80 crane (currently inoperable due to rusted fittings) provides lifting for oceanographic operations and general provisioning. ’’​

However diesel electric propulsion would have a higher efficiency here than these hydraulics, I believe.

This low auxiliary propulsion efficiency isn't much of an issue if she mostly sails, but then the drag of that big propeller lowers the efficiency of her sail propulsion.

So diesel electric auxiliary, on a steerable drop prop apart from the rudder, looks to me to have a higher efficiency in all her propulsion modes.

But must say, whatever the auxiliary, she looks to me like a nice candidate for a conversion into a hell of a shallow draft ocean going motor sailer house boat . . .

 

I looked up Sir Joseph Banks in BWAOM and see the similarities youre referring too, but the hull shapes aren't really alike , rocker vs deadflat bottom etc

I like the design concept, but my main concern is the implementation. If changes were made ( the pilothouse seems taller in the pictures than that n the plans) , it goes without saying that there could be serious consequences for stability handling etc. Perhaps the rumors are true but a have a hard time believing someone would put forth the effort to build a ship of this caliber and make changes without changing consulting a NA.

Also hard to tell if the masts aren't taller than they ought to be. Shouldn't the rig be very low aspect as it doesn't seem like this boat has the same kind of ultimate stability as a deep keeled ship? It seems like a shoal draft, flat bottomed boat would be better suited to inland work. Would this vessel be suited for near coastal work? Offshore?

 

Just curious what you think the annual maintenance budget of this boat might amount to? Would it be affordable to maintain vs something half it's size (20m)? How often should a steel ship be hauled and have her zincs replaced? I suppose with a large tidal range it could be done on the flats

 

Maybe it's a drawing from Phil's book - ‘‘ 103 Sailing Rigs ‘‘Straight Talk’’ ’’ - ?

Amazon link - (not cheap)​

​

 

The idea could be appealing for anyone with the right budget ¹, who likes her style ² more than a super yacht, I'm in the latter ² category, not in the first ¹, any prospect for the idea needs to fit in both the categories, ¹ & ².

 

Well put.

 

The original Bolger concept was for a low budget, economically operated, inter-island trader in the south Pacific. The sailing option was hoped to cut fuel costs, though may be fairly dubious at best. As to the modification, well I can't suggest, though I wouldn't want to maintain this puppy in anything other than work boat fashion. The ends of the ship used a classic Bolger trick, to blend the plate into the stem and stern posts. He simply "stood up" the bottom/side plates until they found a common line, making them V shaped, which causes the chine/bilge turn to disappear in the ends of the boat. Bolger knew how to pen up a good looking craft and this one could be prettied up with not much difficulty, though I don't know her price, I'd need a significantly low one to consider the volume of work, it would take to do so. Anyone with just work boat ideas for her, wouldn't need this and this might work out for her. Lastly, if you have to ask about ownership and maintenance costs related to a vessel like this, maybe you should consider something else all together. As a rule, there's nothing inexpensive about large yacht or small ship ownership, so if you have to ask . . .

 

This is a late 20th century version of a mid-19th century type of ship known as a "hybrid". Back then, steam engines were not powerful enough to drive the ship in through anything greater than a flat calm. As a rule of thumb, about 1hp per ton of engine system weight was all that was available back then. The large, inefficient engine system was considered worth it for only ships carrying the most high valued cargoes, which included people willing to pay a premium ticket price. Gold and other currencies are another example of what is meant by high valued cargo.

The idea was that the sails would propel the ship most of the time, but when the wind strength dropped below a certain speed, the ship could plod along under its steam engine alone. This meant different routes could be chosen, as ones which provided the most reliable winds were not needed as much.

I don't know if the engines were ever not running in these ships, even with a generous wind available, but if they were, they needed minimum pressuer to keep the wheels (propellers and, paddle wheels) turning.

This technology lasted maybe two generations, as steam engines got better and better (up to 1hp per maybe 300 lbs of engine system, perhaps). Eventually, the sails became vestigial, then disappeared altogether, as the newer, better engines could push the ever larger ships at ever greater speeds. Coal, the prevalent fuel of the time, was both relatively cheap and abundant. By the end of the first third of the 20th century, the coal got replaced with oil.

By the last two decades of the 20th century, there was growing concerns that the oil might run out, or at least be in such demand that its cost might become prohibitive. Hence the idea of reviving the hybrid, at least for smaller vessels, such as coastal cargo ships, serving remote areas; research ships, and pleasure yachts.

Like the hybrids of old, the new ones are not true motor sailors, in the more conventional sense; as they do not have enough engine power alone to get them out of trouble, in strong winds and rough going. But they do have an advantage over more pure sailing types, as they can get by with a much smaller rig and still maintain enviable average speeds. This vessel, shown by the OP, seems to designed with this intent.

As for its shape, by looking at the section view offered, I can see it has a very slight dead rise for most of its length. The bottom plates on its ends are twisted to a much steeper one, using conic development techniques. I would have loved to be there to watch them wrestle those plates into place at the ends! :-.

The other design shown looks like a later iteration of PB's "Loose Moose" design. The bow sponson is probably to make it quieter at anchor.

He was an advocate of changing the traditional Chinese lug into a gaff rig, but keeping the "battens". The aft mast is clearly make the sheeting on the higher battens more effective.