Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 86
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Rosedale B.C. Canada
    Posts
    147

    Default Mystery Oz PDR prototype

    I had a little spare time, so I put together another Puddle Duck from plans and revisions by MIK. This one is a little different and lets see how many differences people can spot. The hull went together in 8 hours, ready for paint. The sailing rig and foils are transferable from my other boat.
    Enjoy!

    Rick.

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Tilburg, the Netherlands
    Age
    44
    Posts
    504

    Default

    Hello,

    This has been one quick build!

    The differences I note (but I have no personal experience with the PDR nor its plans):

    - off set daggerboard case (on the inside of the air chamber leaving the cockpit uncluttered)
    - 2 air chambers on the side rather than one big one in front and 2 smaller ones in the back
    - tape / filet construction for the chines rather than chine logs
    - 2 mast postions rather than 1
    - no curves in the decking
    - simplified structure with less cross pieces (in the MK2 version required to support the daggerboard case)

    It is getting busy at the PDR front with multiple options now available:
    - Storer OZ PDR MK2
    - Storer OZ PDR simply version (I don't know what name MIK has assigned to this one)
    - Welsford Kiwi PDR
    - Michalak Catbox

    It seems that PDRs will rule the world!

    Looking forward to the performance reports!

    Best regards,

    Joost
    Last edited by Joost; 21st Mar 2010 at 05:40 AM. Reason: spelling error

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    McAllen, Texas, USA
    Age
    57
    Posts
    154

    Default

    How is it weight wise compared to your other one?

    Does it feel like it will rack more than the other?

  5. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Rosedale B.C. Canada
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkirtley View Post
    How is it weight wise compared to your other one?

    Does it feel like it will rack more than the other?
    It weighs 25lbs more than a Mk II, mostly because it uses 4 sheets of ply instead of 3, and the extra sheet I used 1/4" instead of 1/8".

    And forgive me for not knowing what the term 'rack' means. If you explain it, I can probably tell you.

    Rick.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    McAllen, Texas, USA
    Age
    57
    Posts
    154

    Default

    Twisting around the longitudinal axis. I would assume it wouldn't be bad even if it does because it is still a lot more reinforced than the original brick.

    I assume it would be a tiny bit more prone to oil canning without the stiffeners going across between the tanks. But it is hard to tell because the full length stiffeners would work differently.

    Really, I was just curious because it looks like an interesting change over the MK II version. Actually a pretty radical difference. With that much timber gone, I would have thought it would work out about the same weight even with the heavier ply.

    Playing the what's different game:

    Bulkhead 1 open for storage.
    Two mast positions
    Mast partner solid rather than box built
    Blocking on the sides of the mast partner
    Daggerboard off center
    Daggerboard case with much less timber.
    Daggerboard further aft
    Flotation with more volume but spread longitudinally
    No coaming in the butt when sitting on tanks
    About 2/3 of the timber gone.
    Curved chine logs gone

    Is there a coaming in the front? Can't really tell from pics uniform wood color.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Rosedale B.C. Canada
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkirtley View Post
    Twisting around the longitudinal axis. I would assume it wouldn't be bad even if it does because it is still a lot more reinforced than the original brick.
    I assume it would be a tiny bit more prone to oil canning without the stiffeners going across between the tanks. But it is hard to tell because the full length stiffeners would work differently.

    Really, I was just curious because it looks like an interesting change over the MK II version. Actually a pretty radical difference. With that much timber gone, I would have thought it would work out about the same weight even with the heavier ply.

    The side decks are a bit wider and because they tie in to the rear transom corners, this mitigates a lot of twist, plus the fordeck is one piece for the entire width of the boat. This, along with the framing for the front bulkhead really prevents any twisting. There was an additional piece of framing added to the top of the daggerboard case that was not installed before the picture was taken.

    I used 1/4" fir plywood instead of the lightweight 5.3mm lauan, so I think this attributed to most of the weight gain. I used the 1/4" for the bottom,transoms and the airtank sides and the 1/8" for the decks, daggerboard case, bulkhead and side panels.

    Because there was a lot of extra plywood, I was able to cut out all 4 side and airtank parts at the same time, and plane them down to the lines. This really sped things up with the build. I preinstalled the gunnels and the framing for the transoms and bulkhead. There was enough timber there to glue and screw (airstaple) the parts together to hold its shape. Then I was able to duct (gaffers) tape the bottom down to the sides and fillet the inside just like I did with the Quick Canoe 155. A little fiberglass tape on the outside chines after the fillet had cured, plopped on the decking which was cut oversized and trimmed it out with a router.

    Voila! A really quick PDR build with many of the originals benefits, plus a few added bonuses.

    Rick.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    'Delaide, Australia
    Age
    58
    Posts
    8,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkirtley View Post
    How is it weight wise compared to your other one?

    Does it feel like it will rack more than the other?
    Howdy David,

    The thing that allows boats to rack is the lack of enclosed spaces - once a volume is enclosed that area won't rack much ever again.. The original OZ boats were a big improvement over most of the current ducks at the time.

    When we reported on the forum we were going for much lighter ply a number of builders warned us against it as they were finding the boats did Wrack and Oilcan.

    The Oz mk2 doesn't have a whisper of it. at one stage the biting midge and I stood on diagonally opposite corners and there wasn't a whisper of twist apart from a little bouncy feeling through a very small dimension.

    That boat had the bow tank and two stern tanks each side. There was a section about 3ft long in the middle of the boat that wasn't tanked so that was the most flexible bit, but the side decks helped keep the tanks in line.

    With the mark 3 the full length tanks will make it the original immovable object.

    With the oilcanning - I was drawing in beams across the floor which would require cutouts in the side tank faces, but Rick thought he would give it a shot without. Seems to have worked.

    I am pretty happy about that.

    MIK

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    'Delaide, Australia
    Age
    58
    Posts
    8,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkirtley View Post
    Playing the what's different game:

    Bulkhead 1 open for storage.
    Two mast positions
    Mast partner solid rather than box built
    Blocking on the sides of the mast partner
    Daggerboard off center
    Daggerboard case with much less timber.
    Daggerboard further aft
    Flotation with more volume but spread longitudinally
    No coaming in the butt when sitting on tanks
    About 2/3 of the timber gone.
    Curved chine logs gone

    Is there a coaming in the front? Can't really tell from pics uniform wood color.
    Now that is a pretty impressive list!

    The front bulkhead is open for aesthetic reasons too. Drawing it closed looked real boxy and ugly, but looking through gives just enough feeling of the boat's rocker shape to make it look cute. And it is nice to see what the mast is doing too - I like that aesthetically as well.

    There is a coaming at the front of the cockpit. The offcentre case is just far enough over to allow a half inch wide coaming down the sides too if desired. I would probably put one on because even a tiny coaming prevents quite a lot of nuisance water from coming aboard!

    MIK

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    McAllen, Texas, USA
    Age
    57
    Posts
    154

    Default

    Well, I have redrawn the MKII enough times I could do it in my sleep now, so the differences were pretty easy to pick out (Sure wish I had done that before I actually built mine. I would not have made as many mistakes.)




    Looks really nice and makes a really good addition to the fleet.

    Looking at it, I keep seeing a movable thwart that rests across the tanks,
    A couple hangers on the inside for oars,

    and a sleeping mat in the bottom.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    'Delaide, Australia
    Age
    58
    Posts
    8,112

    Default

    David,

    That's it.

    The only thing you got wrong is the offcentreboard is no further back than the centreboard. It is just that it goes up to the deck so that's where the visual reference point is.

    With the Mk2 it is the cockpit that is the reference point and the foredeck is not mentally added.

    Quote Originally Posted by pdr311 View Post
    I used 1/4" fir plywood instead of the lightweight 5.3mm lauan, so I think this attributed to most of the weight gain. I used the 1/4" for the bottom,transoms and the airtank sides and the 1/8" for the decks, daggerboard case, bulkhead and side panels.

    <snip>

    Voila! A really quick PDR build with many of the originals benefits, plus a few added bonuses.

    Rick.
    Yes, I think most of it is in the choice of material. The real extra area is the extension of the side tank faces inside the cockpit forward to the bow. That is where the extra sheet comes in.

    The idea is to appeal to those who had money but less time. But I had noticed over the last few years the Americans in particular had few worries or hesitations about going out to buy another sheet of ply. So started to understand it wasn't as big a deal as I thought it was.

    The Mk2 concept is still the best fighting machine.

    MIK

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Mi, USA
    Posts
    4

    Default Suprise from the off-center board?

    With the board in one of the side tanks, is there any possibility of a nasty suprise for a rider / sailor in the event that the little duck decides to go wandering into shallow water?

    jtz

  13. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Rosedale B.C. Canada
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by confusedSea View Post
    With the board in one of the side tanks, is there any possibility of a nasty suprise for a rider / sailor in the event that the little duck decides to go wandering into shallow water?

    jtz
    In my opinion, there would be no more of a suprise than in a MKII Oz PDR. It uses the same daggerboard, and the case is supported at least as much as a centrally mounted case. It is always a hazard to run aground in any boat that does not have a pivoting board, but at the speeds we are talking, the impact is usually not dramatic, just embarrassing!
    Rick.

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Mi, USA
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Boatmik View Post
    David,

    The Mk2 concept is still the best fighting machine.

    MIK
    So am I to understand that the Mk2 shuld be the lightest and fastest of the Oz PDR variants? If so, are Duckworks and others going to continue to offer the Mk2 plans?

    jtz

  15. #14
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Rosedale B.C. Canada
    Posts
    147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by confusedSea View Post
    So am I to understand that the Mk2 shuld be the lightest and fastest of the Oz PDR variants? If so, are Duckworks and others going to continue to offer the Mk2 plans?

    jtz
    There is a slight issue with the bow angle on the MkII which was a misunderstanding of the rule interpretation. The new bow angle does not allow the boat to fit on three sheets of ply. I am not sure if MIK will be offering MkII plans until this gets resolved. Having said that, there is an option to install a central daggerboard case, which would make the MkIII just as competitive, other than the slight weight difference that the partial 4th sheet of plywood adds. The MkIII is considerably easier to build, in my experience, and could be built to the same weight as the older design.
    Rick.

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    'Delaide, Australia
    Age
    58
    Posts
    8,112

    Default

    Howdy,

    At the moment there is a lot of rule discussion in the background of the PDR class. I am waiting to see what sort of formula they come up with before I continue drawing up new and better versions of the OZ.

    If the rules allow me to do my "best practice" style plans where I can accurately define and control the shapes of all the components that go into the boat then I will design more OZ PDRs.

    The design and control issues are critical.

    On a sales side they mean the plans are incredibly detailed - my original concept of a boatbuilding course in a book.

    Everything just fits - and cutting and measuring errors are unlikely and appear quickly if they have been made.

    Also the detail means I don't get a huge number of follow up questions from people building the boat - this means that the workload for me doesn't change much no matter how many plans I sell (or don't).

    If the revised rules allow me to do that I will continue with the OZ PDR line.

    Best wishes
    Michael

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Prototype pen box
    By ciscokid in forum WOODTURNING - PEN TURNING
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 29th Oct 2008, 08:34 AM
  2. 2x12 Prototype
    By JeffG. in forum MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25th Jul 2007, 09:36 PM
  3. Octagonal box prototype
    By Rocker in forum WOODWORK PICS
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 6th Nov 2006, 07:27 AM
  4. Octobox1 The prototype
    By Gecko in forum BOX MAKING
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 27th Oct 2006, 01:00 PM
  5. Chair prototype
    By JackG in forum WOODWORK PICS
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 1st Jan 2005, 07:52 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •