Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Needs Pictures: 0
Picture(s) thanks: 0
Results 16 to 30 of 35
Thread: Seagull vs MSD
-
2nd May 2010, 10:25 PM #16Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- Esk, QLD
- Age
- 69
- Posts
- 80
Al,
Judging by his silence, I think he is still looking for the elastic garter. I'm just worried that he has been offended...
-
2nd May 2010 10:25 PM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Age
- 2010
- Posts
- Many
-
3rd May 2010, 12:07 AM #17
-
3rd May 2010, 05:31 AM #18New Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Location
- USA
- Posts
- 7
Ross
Will I be using 6mm ply for the whole project? how many sheets you think it will take with the expansion? The place that sells the marine ply is down to the last few sheets, picked up 5 sheets this week end but want to know how many more I'll need before he runs out.
I assume that the package is in the snail mail system by now. Can't wait to start working on it.
Cheers
Magd
-
3rd May 2010, 08:47 AM #19
Richard,
If he's a boat dog,then I trust his judgement!
My comment was a compliment.
If you can't find an elastic garter,ask Ross to send one down....he uses them all the time when designing boats...he's let a trade secret out of the bag I feel!
Al.
-
3rd May 2010, 09:20 AM #20Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- Esk, QLD
- Age
- 69
- Posts
- 80
Magd,
I've included a suggested nesting diagram on the expansion sheet. Read this at the same time as looking at the nesting sheet for the standard boat.
My belief is that whereas the standard boat uses 4 sheets in total (plus some scrap for the transom which won't quite fit onto the very tight nesting arrangement), the longer boat will come out of five sheets, with possibly enough left over for the transom as well. You will get one bottom panel and both topside panels out of two full sheets and a three foot part sheet, and the remaining bottom panel and all of the bulkheads, thwarts and tank tops out of another two -and-a-bit sheets.
Al, regarding the use of elastic garters, you should see my research-and-development program...
RL
-
3rd May 2010, 11:49 AM #21
Boat designers have all the fun!
Al.
-
3rd May 2010, 10:32 PM #22
Now for some reason, I thought that Flint was another flattie. Quite obviously, it isn't, it's got a shallow V on the bottom.
Ross, just as a matter of academic interest (ie, I want to learn something), how would you expect a hull like Flint to behave compared to a flat bottomed hull like the Seagull. I realise that it'll depend on beam and width of bottom plank and depth of the V and all that, but basically, how would the shallow V hull differ from a flattie when used on a rowboat (ie, narrower beam than a sailboat)?
Richard
-
3rd May 2010, 11:33 PM #23Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- Esk, QLD
- Age
- 69
- Posts
- 80
Richard,
"Flint" is very deep and fine in the V-sections for'ard, flattening to a moderate V in the middle and aft sections
The boat was designed in response to a request from a bloke who had built a "Seagull" and found that she pounded seriously in the Moreton Bay chop between Russell Island and the mainland, and got blown away badly in a cross-wind or quartering wave pattern. I made the sectional shape of "Flint" extremely deep and sharp for'ard, but used enough rocker to bring the heel of the stem to the surface with the middle of the boat immersed to the chines or slightly deeper). The transom is above the waterline and she is double-ended at the waterline.
The combination of the extremely sharp forefoot and the big skeg is supposed to keep her tracking well in waves, but the pronounced rocker is there to concentrate dispacement in the middle, and allow her to manoeuvre under oars.
The original builder reported that she tracked nicely in adverse conditions, and that she doesn't pound
There are plenty more photos of the boat (as expandable thumbnails) on my website Bayside Wooden Boats Ross Lillistone under the button labelled "Flint Photos"
Ross
-
3rd May 2010, 11:39 PM #24
Thanks for that Ross. Much to look at and think about.
Richard
-
3rd May 2010, 11:46 PM #25Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
- Location
- Esk, QLD
- Age
- 69
- Posts
- 80
What I should say is that I did not mean to criticise "Seagull" as a design - it is just that she wasn't suited to the choppy conditions this guy was operating in - I think she would be fine on flat water.
Ross
-
4th May 2010, 06:42 AM #26SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 848
Can you do this in a Seagull or MSD?
Great picture for a rowboat
Brian
-
4th May 2010, 08:16 AM #27
-
4th May 2010, 08:33 AM #28SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- May 2008
- Location
- UK
- Posts
- 848
-
4th May 2010, 07:00 PM #29
-
4th May 2010, 07:03 PM #30
Back to Ross' Flint (I'm limited for posting time which is why this discussion is stretching out over days).
So the Flint's hull was designed to handled choppy water. Am I correct in imagining that it's the shape of the front end of the boat that gives it this ability?
What do you need to look for to get stability (tracking, not rocking and rolling) in windy conditions?
Richard