....when I moved up to take care of dad...

http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=0

Above is the origional 20 foot river cruiser I designed. We actyally
have a couple pieces in the barn from the very start of the construction.

http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=1

Above is the same boat with the planned core foam and kevlar/fibreglass,
slide on removable hard top I had planned which was to add 60 pounds to
the boat. Planned, it would sleep two comfortably, have a porta' potty
and a sink.


This would be the boat with the canvas top added to the drawing... The
real beauty of this boat is the months I spent lofting it, with input
from several world known SNAME Engineers especially in the after
sections of the floor and sides/transom to make it efficient with a
smaller engine. It will be a wonderful river boat (most agree it
"should"), and should be just fine with a 35-50 horse engine.

On 9/16/2012 5:00 PM, JustWait wrote:
...when I moved up to take care of dad...

http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=0


Above is the origional 20 foot river cruiser I designed. We actyally
have a couple pieces in the barn from the very start of the construction.

http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=1


Above is the same boat with the planned core foam and kevlar/fibreglass,
slide on removable hard top I had planned which was to add 60 pounds to
the boat. Planned, it would sleep two comfortably, have a porta' potty
and a sink.



Edited to insert link
http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=2

This would be the boat with the canvas top added to the drawing... The
real beauty of this boat is the months I spent lofting it, with input
from several world known SNAME Engineers especially in the after
sections of the floor and sides/transom to make it efficient with a
smaller engine. It will be a wonderful river boat (most agree it
"should"), and should be just fine with a 35-50 horse engine.

On 9/16/2012 5:01 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 9/16/2012 5:00 PM, JustWait wrote:
...when I moved up to take care of dad...

http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=0



Above is the origional 20 foot river cruiser I designed. We actyally
have a couple pieces in the barn from the very start of the construction.

http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=1



Above is the same boat with the planned core foam and kevlar/fibreglass,
slide on removable hard top I had planned which was to add 60 pounds to
the boat. Planned, it would sleep two comfortably, have a porta' potty
and a sink.



Edited to insert link
http://trip-reports.com/coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=2


This would be the boat with the canvas top added to the drawing... The
real beauty of this boat is the months I spent lofting it, with input
from several world known SNAME Engineers especially in the after
sections of the floor and sides/transom to make it efficient with a
smaller engine. It will be a wonderful river boat (most agree it
"should"), and should be just fine with a 35-50 horse engine.



Can only do so many of those boat posts myself... Just sayin'.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:01:17 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

This would be the boat with the canvas top added to the drawing... The
real beauty of this boat is the months I spent lofting it, with input
from several world known SNAME Engineers especially in the after
sections of the floor and sides/transom to make it efficient with a
smaller engine. It will be a wonderful river boat (most agree it
"should"), and should be just fine with a 35-50 horse engine.

===

In my experience the most efficient bottom shape is dead nutz flat,
carried all the way aft to the transom, at least in smaller boats.
That shape doesn't ride very well in a chop of course, but it is
highly efficient for getting on plane with very little power. When I
was a kid we had a flat bottomed wood skiff about 12 or 13 ft long.
It was relatively lightly built but no exotic woods or other extreme
measures. With an old 7 1/2 hp Merc it would plane my brother and I
at about 15 mph. With just one person on board we had to put a big
rock in the bow to trim it out. It would do 17 or 18 mph in that
configuration and get about 35 miles to the gallon.

On 9/17/2012 7:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:01:17 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

This would be the boat with the canvas top added to the drawing... The
real beauty of this boat is the months I spent lofting it, with input
from several world known SNAME Engineers especially in the after
sections of the floor and sides/transom to make it efficient with a
smaller engine. It will be a wonderful river boat (most agree it
"should"), and should be just fine with a 35-50 horse engine.

===

In my experience the most efficient bottom shape is dead nutz flat,
carried all the way aft to the transom, at least in smaller boats.
That shape doesn't ride very well in a chop of course, but it is
highly efficient for getting on plane with very little power. When I
was a kid we had a flat bottomed wood skiff about 12 or 13 ft long.
It was relatively lightly built but no exotic woods or other extreme
measures. With an old 7 1/2 hp Merc it would plane my brother and I
at about 15 mph. With just one person on board we had to put a big
rock in the bow to trim it out. It would do 17 or 18 mph in that
configuration and get about 35 miles to the gallon.


Yes.. I understand however I did design this hull with a full out SNAME
engineer and we ran it through his software. He had me make a couple
small changes on one of the chines but it was a difference of about 1
1/2 inches a side. This changed a bit of the shape and I redid it and
resubmitted it. Anyway, I will see if I can bring up a better drawing of
the bottom. It basically is a dead flat bottom, wider than the picture
would depict...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:11:11 -0400, wrote:

Maybe you are only posting to yourself because the rest of us have
figured out that you are trying to get us to view some pictures on
your wife's server so that you can data mine our IP address, location,
and other pertinent information in order to establish our identity.

http://www.networksolutions.com/whoi...ip-reports.com

===

If you have something to hide maybe you shouldn't be here.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:11:11 -0400, wrote:

Maybe you are only posting to yourself because the rest of us have
figured out that you are trying to get us to view some pictures on
your wife's server so that you can data mine our IP address, location,
and other pertinent information in order to establish our identity.

http://www.networksolutions.com/whoi...ip-reports.com

===

If you have something to hide maybe you shouldn't be here.

I remember when I brought whois to it's knees. Three HP D class servers
mining the whois database. I had about 500 processes on each that were
yanking in each and every entry.

Those were the days.

On 9/17/2012 7:49 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:11:11 -0400, wrote:

Maybe you are only posting to yourself because the rest of us have
figured out that you are trying to get us to view some pictures on
your wife's server so that you can data mine our IP address, location,
and other pertinent information in order to establish our identity.

http://www.networksolutions.com/whoi...ip-reports.com

===

If you have something to hide maybe you shouldn't be here.


WTF is that moron talking about?

On 9/17/2012 8:14 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:02:08 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

On 9/17/2012 7:49 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:11:11 -0400, wrote:

Maybe you are only posting to yourself because the rest of us have
figured out that you are trying to get us to view some pictures on
your wife's server so that you can data mine our IP address, location,
and other pertinent information in order to establish our identity.

http://www.networksolutions.com/whoi...ip-reports.com

===

If you have something to hide maybe you shouldn't be here.


WTF is that moron talking about?

That pretty much assures that I was spot on.


Yeah, a spot on someones underwear maybe... What a douche.. Please,
don't go to the pictures, don't talk about boats.. Just go pay your ****
harry.....

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 19:49:39 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:11:11 -0400, wrote:

Maybe you are only posting to yourself because the rest of us have
figured out that you are trying to get us to view some pictures on
your wife's server so that you can data mine our IP address, location,
and other pertinent information in order to establish our identity.

http://www.networksolutions.com/whoi...ip-reports.com

===

If you have something to hide maybe you shouldn't be here.

You read *e#c's (and company's) posts and feel that you need to
broadcast your identity? Are you nuts?

Yep, Harry and Don both think that's it's a good and prudent thing to
post your personal information on usenet!