Building Flareline 18, would like to extend by 2 frames...

All i can say is if you want a smaller boat find the plans for the boat you want !! if you start to change drawings you are asking for trouble and it will always be a odd ball and theres a good chance it will be a dog !!!
Personally i dont want to be involved with this posting !!

 

Bert - you only need to get one set of plans... but they must the right set. We really don't have sufficient info to asses the Hartley one way or the other, but I can say with some confidence that you would be better off with a boat that is designed for the task at hand.
It will cost you nothing to spend a little time on the net looking at the stock plans that are offered by any number of well known designers. Look in the directory on this site, there are lots. Once you've found a few that you think may be suitable, talk to the designers.... tell them what you are planning to do.... ask them what they have that would be most suitable.
But let me also say this - and I don't wish to sound rude - it is apparent that you are trying to do this without spending any more than you have to. Nothing wrong with that, of course. Electric powered boats are really in their infancy in terms of efficiency. As a result, the systems tend to be less than ideal and the costs for anything that is useful in the everyday sense are high. I'm not an electric-boat expert (though I did put together a design for a diesel-electric yacht... a twin keel boat, by coincidence!) but I firmly believe that in the overall cost of your project, the plans will be insignificant. Again, I don't wish to be rude... but if you can't afford to buy an appropriate set of plans, can you really afford to build this boat?

 

Not that my opinion counts for much, but if I were interested in building an electric boat and the idea was to use solar and other new technologies; I would concentrate on that, and not spend time reinventing the wheel.

So to that end, I would buy and old boat that is the right length, shape and displacement, then I would build a super structure to fit the needs of my new high technology electric boat.

Well there it is, take it for what it’s worth.

 

Thank you, any opinion counts for me and also yours.

Please see it my way.

1) Here I purchase some nice and very good drawings for a sailboat.

2) We fly overseas with my wife for a few weeks on the water, sailing, she has an operation 5 days before the holiday, we go sailing, I realise that both of us are no longer be able to sail on our own. Nothing wrong. I have spent that money in good faith. I decide to go for electrics. I understand electrics, I know the shortcomings and I see it as a challenge to make sure I get 100 years old instead of 70.

3) approach the NZ and ask for opinion. This is his reply:

Hi Bert,
Probably the Flareline 20 if the HP rating of the motors is enough to drive it....... if one must be chosen.

Can't see the point of using electric motors in a boat though, it's neither practical nor compatable.
Petrol or diesel motive power takes minutes to re-charge the fuel supply whereas electric takes hours. Electric motors and salt water in the same environment is a very short lived marriage.
----- Original Message -----

I buy the plans (for a slightly shorter version Flareline 18, which was also wrong from me) , and we all feel it is the wrong choice. Still the plans are good and people has made some very good boats made from his plans.

But it is up to me at the end of the day to make sure that whoever and whatever is recommended, it is my decision, wrongly or correctly. I cannot blame the NZ boatbuilder or anybody else.

Thus I put a feeler out. Maybe I could still save the money I have spent on both plans and as an intellectual excersize use the plans, but carefull do the right thing. My logic tells me, that if I reduce ALL measurements by the same percentage. THAT BOAT SHOULD BE excactly perform as at 100%, otherwise I feel, there is something drastically wrong in this industry . Wageningen, the Dutch test centrum makes a scale model and you all tell me that the outcome is no good, because it is scaled down??

If you would have said, Bert, it is tricky to reduce the plans on a photocopy machine by 13%, I would have agreed. It is flipping difficult to reduce. And those plans from NZ are beautifull well laid-out.

I value all opinions, maybe I like to accept your opinion, but for other reasons I can't maybe accept your idee, but please DO NOT stop to give me advise, I do appreciate all inputs. I do.
bert

 

Very much true, but I have searched the Internet, and Hartley has a good name and their plans are understandeble by me. Whatever I buy, I would have to modify it in anyway. We al agree, it should be a in principle a multihull. However from the start , I have made it clear that I am not competing with Rick, who's aim is to be as efficient as human possible, even if it comes to some discomfort by building a narrow hull, to optimise the efficiency. I have all along said, I like to have comfort, 30 Kwh and 2 motors, even if it means slower and more cumbersome, but I have boat lenght restrictions of Max +/- 7 meter.

I have done that, and I don't blame anybody. Electrics is still a new topic with wide horizons and not everybody sees electrics as the future.

Yes, Will, that is true.

Yes, Will you are so right, I don't want to sell my house and other assets to buy a complete ready made yacht. I love doing things with my hands, love to experiment, make mistakes and have for the next 3 years set aside, a nice amount for that purpose of building an electric boat.

On the other hand I am a Hollander and learned something from them. Don't waste money if it is not neccessary. Bear in mind, it is the building of the boat which will give me the pleasure. Inclusive of mistakes, which then have to be corrected. All plans available have advantages and disadvantage.
If it is technical possible to shrink the Hartley 28, I have more advantages then buying again another plan.

Will, I will be searching tonight again the websites and see what comes the closest to my various specifications.
Sofar, the Hartley 28 has come the closest, except I have to shrink it in that case . Sadly, I don't get the support for that, thus I will have to move on and see what else is available.

 

Hi Tunnels,

That is very sad, I do value your opinion and although you may not agree with my proposal. There is one misunderstanding, I am not changing the design. I am proportionally reduce the drawing. This should not bear any effect on the design. If it does, please close all the test centers in the world, where they test a scale model of your design and they create the NA designs on scale and test them for you. Have you ever been in such 100 meter long type of swimmingpool, and those on scale models are tested at all kinds of waves? Very impressive.
Bert

 

I have been away on far more serous matters for a while and find that this thread has not progressed one iota.

"Thus I put a feeler out. Maybe I could still save the money I have spent on both plans and as an intellectual excersize use the plans, but carefull do the right thing. My logic tells me, that if I reduce ALL measurements by the same percentage. THAT BOAT SHOULD BE excactly perform as at 100%, otherwise I feel, there is something drastically wrong in this industry . Wageningen, the Dutch test centrum makes a scale model and you all tell me that the outcome is no good, because it is scaled down??"

NO, NO, This is NOT (NOT) true. It is not the industry that is in error, it is you. Until you begin to see that fact, you will get nowhere. Logic is a good thing but adherence too your won logic in the face of those much more knowledgeable than yourself is just dumb. I am being deliberately rude here in order to get the point across although I fear the effort is in vain. Any of the books I or we steered you to earlier explain this in detail.

I remember teaching a former surgeon in a boatbuilding class who felt that he had nothing to learn from me but could not learn to hold a handplane correctly. Once, when totally exasperated with his clumsy attempts, I said, I don't care who you were before, here you are the student and I am the teacher. Either get that or get out. This thread is very close to that. I apologize ahead of time.

No animals and only a few egos were bruised in the execution of this message.

 

The scaling of boats discussed.

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/constants-across-boats-sizes-30620.html

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-design/scaling-down-america-junior-plans-28584.html

 

I think one can scale up and down more than 15% but in order to do this successfully one needs years of experience with boats of the type being considered for scaling. For example if one scaled my 30' Willard down to 15' the resulting boat wouldn't be good for anything. But if one scaled a 36' GB 1970s trawler down to 18' one could have a very nice open inboard launch like the Handy Billys. If you scale a rather narrow 25' boat to 50' you may have a rather wide 50' boat but possibly still within acceptable aspect ratios for the type and length. A designer or one w lots of experience and knowledge has a good chance at rather far out scaling w reasonable chances of success. People out of these categories need the advice of people in these categories. Bert sought the advice and got so much he had trouble making sense of it all.

Easy

 

Hi Easy,

Thank you, Easy.
I have the feeling that you are one of the experienced persons to whom I will listen very carefulll and even follow your advise. Similar like the advise from Will.

The reduction ON ALL MEASRUMENTS will be 13% only. All, but then all measurements. Except the standard products, one cannot reduce those by 13%. It now totally depends on whether I can find equipment in Cape Town who can, those very well drawn up plans, reduce from 100 to 87%.
If I cannot find equipment to do so, or the cost is more then new plans, I will abolish this plan of reducing and will hunt further for other plans, which must be in that case complying with my needs.

I have listen to the inputs of many
1) Some stated wrong hull, I have changed direction and dropped the Fareline 18.

2) Some stated more then 5 meters on the rough sea, I listen and try to go for 7 meters

3) Some stated, I must have a displacement hull, I found it in the Hartley 28

4) Joe said, buy a hull and do your modifications to the top. Excellent idee, but it means I loose the fun and experience of making the hull also. But yes it is a good idee and I have been looking around.

5) The Dutch test center takes a design, scale it down and give you a report. What is the difference in scaling down from 100% to 20% or I reduce it by 13% from 100 to 87 % and suddenly I am totally nuts and I am wrong. But all test centers are right. Somewhere, there is something wrong. Either the design at 100 % is no good, and therefore if you reduce it, it will be even worse off.
OR
The boat should have the same qualities at 87% as at 100%. Some of you can be a NA, much more intelligent then I am, please explain then why not. Unfortunately , I have some very good books here and ALL of them are often very vague when it comes to hard logic. Maybe I am too dumb to understand that if you reduce it from 100 to 20% that is fine, but if you reduce it from 100 to 87, no longer good.

6) Some said, you must go for multihull, I agree, but I have accepted that with lower efficiency and speed , it meets more my goals I have set out, when I go for the sailing hull type of boat met twin keels.

I am a foreigner, I write in the same way I speak. Please read my comments with a low slow speaking voice and please don't get upset, if you have been reading my comments with a high pitched voice.

Easy, I love to come to Alaska one day on a cruising ship. It must be fantastic to see your country.
Bert

 

Tom , calm down, I have broad shoulders and can take a knock. I worked 25 years for a German company high up, and boy could they be rude.
Lets analise your statements. : "No, No, This is NOT etc. " what are you trying to say?. The Dutch can reduce a plan from 100% to 20% and test it for you, that is fine, but if I take a displacement sailing boat hull from 100% to 87%, suddenly I am dumb. Nobody needs any logic to start also to be puzzeld.

I can only shake my head. Tom sit down and read my comments with a low voice and slowly. I am a foreigner and sometimes express myself 180 degrees of what I try to say. Maybe one day we have a beer in one of your pubs and have a good grin. Where is NC ??? Austraila? Nothern California?
Bert

 

Bert
Have you been following this thread:
http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/bo...t-stabilized-monohull-29665-4.html#post345614

Eric's boat is getting closer to reality. It would be something very easily driven with electric and has a good cabin top for panels.

Rick w

 

Let him learn the hard way. If he wants to ignore basic physics and mechanical similitude law, then the lesson will be as painful as everyone has hinted and he will have only himself to yell at.

 

Thanks Rick, Lovely design, I looked at the video. It certainly moves nicely over rough water. Absolute the perfect concept.

 

I am absolute flabbergasted. I have no idee what you are hinting at. Are you telling me
a) don't use a sailingboat plan which has a displacment hull with 2 x 6 Kw electric motor?
b) don't scale down Hartley sailing boat plans by 13%?
c) there are lots of ready to purchase boat plans for electric going off shore boats, don't fiddle with plan reduction?
d) I can only use a trimaran design, otherwise it does not work?
e) Are you telling me that if I build a sailingboat displacment hull of 7 meter and have 2 electric motors of 6 Kw, sufficient electric energy on board, I have wasted my money? What about all those other 100.000 boats out there in the world which has similar displacement hulls?
f) Don't use Japanese Cider and French very light plywood, it makes the boat too light?

Please if you attack somebody, specify.

That is what I like from Easy, Will, Rick and a couple of others. They give constructive help. Don't take me for a fool.

Bert