View Full Version : Anyone know of any plans for a canoe with a transom.

12-21-2003, 06:07 PM
I'm just dreaming here so no one go out of your way to help me. I'm thinking of a canoe that has a transom to take about a 5 horsepower motor. The reason for this is so I can go upstream on some rivers. Thanks for any replies.

12-21-2003, 06:16 PM
I had a Grumman 17' aluminum square stern that flew, with a 5 horse OB. It probably weighed 125# dry.

12-21-2003, 06:25 PM

12'6" OB motor canoe (55#):

15' OB motor canoe (65#):

Jack Heinlen
12-21-2003, 06:31 PM
I don't know if there are plans available, but there is a canoe built traditional wood and canvas, by a Canadian company I believe, that has a wonderful reputation. I want to say twenty foot long. It's been used extensively as a supply boat for remote hunting and fishing camps. Great, great boats by all accounts. Anyone know the boat? It's right one the tip of my proverbial tongue. Nope, can't find it on the hard drive. smile.gif

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-21-2003, 06:58 PM
In England, anyway, the usual way to mount an outboard on a canoe is with an outrigger - fit a vertical board across the cockpit, extending a few inches to one side, and clamp the outboard on that. Weight in the right place, and easily controllable by the crew.

12-21-2003, 07:15 PM
Thanks guys.

12-21-2003, 08:15 PM
A guy in Montreal built a canoe with transom. He simply put a flat end on a standard canoe design - the Bob's Special from Bear Mountain Boats.



He has more pics and description on his website, but it is mostly in French. Some other details are in the archives of the Bear Mountain Boats Builders Forum (in English). Search for "Jean-Pierre"

[ 12-21-2003, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: KenC ]

Todd Bradshaw
12-21-2003, 08:17 PM
Jack, that's probably the "Grand Laker", which is a well known square stern. I'm pretty sure plans are available, but not sure from where at the moment. Newfound Woodworks also has plans for a Mini Grand Laker that's something like 18' long. David Hazen's book "The Stripper's guide to canoe Building" comes with plans for a 20' square-sterned Micmac which is pretty similar.

Steve Paskey
12-21-2003, 09:13 PM
One more: in Boats With an Open Mind, Phil Bolger shows plans for a square-sterned "motor canoe." 15'-9" long, a 3 foot beam, strip-planked construction, with a nice tumblehome to the sides and a short deck forward.

On Bolger's design, the full width is carried back from midships to the transom. He says it would allow the boat to safely go much faster (15 knots) than a square-sterned canoe with a relatively narrow stern.

Jack Heinlen
12-21-2003, 09:46 PM
Yep, the 'Grand Laker' Todd. Thanks for jogging my memory.

Boats are evolutionary, meaning things that work survive. The Grand Laker, for it's purpose, a cargo canoe, would be hard to beat. Another reason boats(designs) continue is because they suit a variety of purposes. I think, for a lake runabout, seaworthy in almost any lake weather, outboard, the Grand Laker would be hard to beat. I wouldn't want to paddle it far, but even that would be doable if the motor crapped the bed.

And it could be built strip if you didn't want the traditional.

Best of luck.

Wild Dingo
12-21-2003, 11:11 PM
Grand Laker is correct... theres a guy Jay? something or other... I think who wrote a book called "building the strip planked canoe" I think... anyway he was a long time big name canoeist fella from the outback, {Adrionicks? sp?} trail guide, stands on rails and paddles sorta thing... champion at it too apparently... tryin to jog someones mind here!... Okay mind recall the book! aahhhh I know It had had about 6 canoe plans in it from the Grand Laker to smaller ones cause I copied down all the numbers to them all ;) along with some pretty good photos of finished canoes as well.

He gave great details on how and what to use mostly seemed to be interested in building and seeing built worthy good to use in hard wearing areas of the wildreness type canoes not rough as guts but right for the outback to take the knocks and not be bothered to much... not show poneys or feather weights like Mac does with the wee lassie even though theyre beautiful wee boats... this fella was after people building good solid canoes

Anyways I hope someone members the bloke and book Im thinking of cause he went into some detail on how best to deal with that square transom area... along with building a strongback as solid as a dunny brick ****ehouse!

Ahhh well believe me there is a book that definantly has plans for the Grand Laker in it!! It will come to me eventually I guess :rolleyes:

Jack Heinlen
12-21-2003, 11:42 PM
Adrionicks? sp?} Adirondacks. I'm amazed someone(you) half a world away has even heard of this place, let alone be able to spell it. I couldn't name a wilderness park in Australia for the life of me.


Spent time there a number of years back. It is so close to population centers, it is suffering. Still a wonderful place. Me and my gal heard loons doing their spring thing, as the ice receded, and climbed a mountain by Blue Mountain Lake. It's a special place.

Oh, but back to the canoe. Grand Laker is a spectacular bet.

12-22-2003, 12:03 AM
In the Gil Gilpatrick book, "Building a Strip Canoe", there are mold plans for a Grand Laker. It's 19'6" x 45" x 18". There's no commentary about its pedigree.

12-22-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
In England, anyway, the usual way to mount an outboard on a canoe is with an outrigger - fit a vertical board across the cockpit, extending a few inches to one side, and clamp the outboard on that. Weight in the right place, and easily controllable by the crew.Does anyone have a picture of this? I kind of like that idea. Then it could still be easily paddled too.

12-22-2003, 09:57 AM

12-22-2003, 09:59 AM
Wouldn't a setup like that make the boat go sideways all the time? What size engine I would imagine you could only use about a 2or3 hp like that. thanks for the pic Don.

12-22-2003, 10:06 AM
Most of the side-saddle mounts have a 3 HP limit. I made one for use with an electric motor, and it worked just fine. The canoe tracks beautifully, in exactly the opposite direction of the prop's thrust. As Andrew stated, it allows for better weight distribution as well. When using the square-stern with an outboard, I had to use a long tiller extension, in order to trim the canoe.

jan engberg
12-22-2003, 10:57 AM
Since I am the one who ordered the plans and built the 15ft OB motor canoe illustrated in Meerkats post, I thought some comments would be of interest. Selway Fisher estimates the wheight of the boat to be 28kg, mine actually turned out to be 48 kg. All my stich and glue projcts (a Warrham Tiki 21 catamaran and a cape Carles Kayak)have become heavier than designed. This is so because I always want to add things. In this case I added five watertight compartments and covered the whole boat in glassfibre/epoxy. It is easy to build - took me some 150 hours. A four stroke Yamaha 4hp makes the boat run at 14 knots (15 mph?). You can run att full speed only on flat water and you will need a tiller extension. The boat easily takes 3 persons and gear for fishing. It is very stable to stand up in and rows quite good - especially with two oarsmen. If I were to build it again I would angle the transom inward to get a cleaner run.

Todd Bradshaw
12-22-2003, 02:23 PM
Step #1 is to figure out what you want the boat to do, and you have several choices. The big freight canoes, like the Grand Laker and the big Chestnut freighters that were used in the Canadian wilderness are wonderful utility boats, but as a recreational canoe they tend to be quite heavy (hard to build under 100-125 lbs. or more) and are not particularly nimble due to their bulk. Their beamy hulls are very stable and their wide transoms will support a pretty big motor (5-10 H.P or better) and give you a wide stern seat where you can comfortably turn part way around to operate the motor. These boats will plane with enough power. They don't paddle particularly well, compared to most canoes due to their weight and the wide transom, but won't kill you if you are just paddling in moderation.

Then there are more normal-sized canoes with a wishbone transom. The stern stem is just as sharp as that of a paddling canoe, but they flare to a small motor transom at the top, above the waterline. These boats paddle like any canoe (both forward and backward, which isn't the case with freight canoes) are lighter and more portable than freighters and generally use electric or smaller (1.5-3 H.P.) gas outboards. They motor at displacement speeds and if you try to overpower one to get it to plane, many get quite unstable. The stern seat on most of these boats is pretty narrow, not providing a comfortable way to turn your body around very far and the skipper's motoring position is often pretty uncomfortable.

The side-mount bracket can be attached to almost any regular canoe. Shoving the motor over there may be a bit off-angle, but the boats generally steer fine and the motoring position is pretty comfortable. You are limited to around 3 H.P. max for gas (much of which probably won't be used) or electric trolling motors (medium sized, with a short shaft work best). Long battery cables that let you move that damned heavy battery to somewhere forward of the center-thwart are also helpful. The boat will move at displacement speed and won't plane (it would probably be REALLY unstable if you tried it). In a three-knot river current, your upstream progress may only be 1-2 knots at best and since you are essentially doing almost a whitewater-style back-ferry, steering can be pretty touchy going upriver in any substantial current. If the water is shallow enough, it would probably be faster to learn the art of canoe-poling.

Side mounts are pretty easy to make. You can use oak, ash, mahogany, etc. if you don't like the looks of the aluminum bar shown in the photo. A wooden cross-bar should be about 1"-1.25" thick to prevent twist, about 4" wide for stability and the 1.5"-2" thick motor block is through-bolted to the cross-bar at a slight raked angle with a couple big carriage bolts. The cast aluminum gunwale brackets, bronze bolts and bronze "tail nuts" (the big one-armed wing-nuts) which secure the cross-bar to the gunwale are available from the parts dept. of the Old Town Canoe Co.

You can also eliminate the metal gunwale clamp, if desired, and substitute a second, shorter crossbar inside the hull and cut to fit up under the gunwale. Bolts and wing-nuts are then used to pull the two bars together, sandwiching the gunwale between them. It's a little easier on the gunwale varnish, especially if the bars are faced with leather or rubber where they touch it. This can also help keep the mount from sliding around on the boat.

So those are the basic boat options. Due to the power limitations of the wishbone-sterned or side mount systems, if you're often planning to go "up the creek without a paddle" (as it were) the big freighter with the larger motor may indeed be the best choice. In use, they don't feel quite as canoe-like as your standard 17-foot recreational canoe, but in their element they're great boats.

Side note: If you do put any kind of add-on motor on a regular canoe it's a really good idea to do some testing, since many of these systems allow the motor to turn almost all the way around. Turn it 90 degrees to the keel line and apply some power to see how much rolling potential it has. Most small-to-medium trolling motors and small gas outboards don't have the power to dump you, but bigger motors can roll you in a heartbeat if accidentally turned on while pointing the wrong direction.

[ 12-22-2003, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Todd Bradshaw ]

12-22-2003, 03:24 PM
Square stern canoes don't paddle for squat, which if you plan to mostly motor isn't a problem. Wishbone or side motor mounts make for a canoe that is still a canoe as far paddling goes, while still being able to be motored with a small engine. Not 5 hp, but small.

12-22-2003, 03:36 PM
If you want to get sexy and have an electric motor, Selway-Fisher has this bit of poogy bait! ;) :
23'6" Brambling Electric Canoe

Champagne, ukelele and woo pitching not included ;) If you made the center seats convertable, you could do that American beer thing! ;)

[ 12-22-2003, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

Todd Bradshaw
12-22-2003, 03:56 PM
I thought we had Norm talked into building one of those.

I once paddled a downriver (whitewater distance racing) kayak called a "Prijon Interceptor" that had a small transom maybe 4"-5" wide which got dragged through the water. The boat had no rocker, was very narrow at the waterline, extremely fast and SERIOUSLY tippy. Racing rules limited the length on these boats to about 14'8". The designers claimed that the hull on this model was really nearly a foot longer. It just didn't know that the tail had been chopped-off! I guess they thought that the longer lines more than made up for the extra drag caused by the little transom. As I remember, the concept didn't last, so maybe they were full of it. Once we get to dragging a transom as large as a square-stern canoe through the water at paddling speeds, I'd pretty much have to agree with Jax on how well they paddle.

12-22-2003, 04:12 PM
I don't really see the point to the boats like the grand lake though. I mean if they aren't much good paddling why not just build a regular or some sort?

Todd Bradshaw
12-22-2003, 05:16 PM
In their original concept, the freight canoe offered a shallow draft, high capacity, pretty seaworthy hull that could do big lakes, fast rivers and thin-water, swampy areas at reasonable speed using fairly low-powered, lightweight motors. Also, the whole thing could be carried by a couple people and would fit down a narrow, steep portage trail when needed. Plus, you feel like the commander of the world when you run one.

12-22-2003, 05:40 PM
Years ago my Dad made himself an outboard rig like that which Donn has pictured. Dad used it on a 17' Grumman canoe with a little 2 1/2 horse outboard. It worked great.

12-22-2003, 08:45 PM
Ok let me explain more what I want the canoe for. I want it to be able to paddle still and I want it to be able to go upstream in some fairly slow rivers but not stand still. I want it to be have the largest capacity possible because I want it to reach remote areas to hunt in. And I need to carry lots of stuff with me and if I ever take it elk or moose hunting it needs to have at least a 1000lb capacity. I also want to be able to drag a few hundred feet from the shoreline so nobody else going down the river gets the great idea to steal it. Ok is that too much to ask of one little boat?

Wild Dingo
12-22-2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by JimConlin:
In the Gil Gilpatrick book, "Building a Strip Canoe", there are mold plans for a Grand Laker. It's 19'6" x 45" x 18". There's no commentary about its pedigree.Thats the one!! Gil sorry I thought it was Jay been awhile since I read it library here sux totally for good boat books but that was a good one I thought
Thanks Jim :cool:

12-22-2003, 09:16 PM
jan engberg; No offense meant in posting those Selway-Fisher pics. Paul Fisher does not always attribute pictures in his catalog, but does in the photo gallary section.

garland reese
12-22-2003, 09:30 PM
Sounds more like oars and a motor would be the ticket here over a canoe. You'd probably have a much more stable boat and it sounds like you may have the thing packed out heavily at times.

12-22-2003, 09:33 PM
That's what I was thinking but how do you hide a boat in the woods? You can't simply pick it up.

Todd Bradshaw
12-23-2003, 04:20 AM
Going upstream in any kind of noticable current in any paddle-powered canoe is not something that you will want to do for long or very often. It's both a lot of work and frustrating as hell to be paddling so hard and watching the bank just barely moving by. Small motors that can only move you at displacement speed aren't much better -less work, but more time to observe your lousy progress.

The last moose that I saw was pretty big. First rule: only shoot mooses which happen to be upstream of where you eventually need to go.

The capacity figures on most canoes are quite misleading. It's often done by seeing how much weight the boat will hold and still maintain 6" of freeboard. What they don't tell you is that with that much weight aboard, the thing paddles horribly and it feels like you're trying to propel an aircraft carrier with a stick. Canoe-building plans often have more modest, more realistic capacities listed, but not always. In any case, 1,000 lbs. in a canoe is a very big load and to carry it reasonably well you need a big canoe - something bigger than your standard 18' recreational double-ender, a freight canoe.

Dragging it is a problem. It's really hard on wood/canvas, strip/fiberglass or straight fiberglass boats. Aluminum, Royalex (Vinyl/ABS/foam core/ABS/vinyl sandwich construction) or polyethylene hold up much better, though they still can be damaged. In any case, carrying the boat up the trail or using one of those folding portage carts to support one end and keep the hull off the ground would be a lot better for any canoe.

There are very few production canoes built these days which even approach the size and capacity to carry that much weight reasonably well. If you could find an old Chestnut freighter to restore, it would do the job. Unfortunately, they are rare. Most lived a hard life and got used-up in the process so they tend to be harder to find than old pleasure canoes. This 20'2" Chestnut "Traffic" model has a 54" beam, 20" midship depth and 36" tall bow stem, listed cappy. is 3,000 lbs. and it weighs a whopping 230 lbs. With that kind of size, you can see why it will carry a really big load in just a few inches of water if needed.

The similar 19-footer had a 51" beam, 2,000 lb. capacity and weighed 175 lbs., so they're not little boats by any means and their stability is not much of an issue compared to regular canoes. They're essentially long, skinny powerboats which can be paddled after a fashion. I don't have the Grand Laker specs right in front of me, but it would be fairly similar, though possibly not as extreme, and lighter. Whether any of these would suit your purposes better than some sort of skiff or more common powerboat is hard to say. Some of the driftboat makers used to build motorboats for rivers called "Sea Sleds" or something like that and there are drift boats with motor wells added. There is a guy here in town who has a big one and I remember being surprised at the size of the motor he had in the well. But that's the story on big canoes.

Gavin Atkin
12-23-2003, 06:28 AM
Might this answer - or something like it?



12-23-2003, 10:07 AM
Thanks Gavin but thats not really what I'm looking for.
Ok what do you think of this idea. http://www.boatplans-online.com/proddetail.php?prod=XF20

My only concern is would that be dangerous going upstream in a flat-bottom hull?

12-23-2003, 10:15 AM
ah, why do you think it might be dangerous to go up stream in a flat bottom boat?

12-23-2003, 10:35 AM
Float all over the place maybe tip with all the bumps? I don't know I suppose if you just kept your speed down you would be fine.

12-23-2003, 11:10 AM
flat bottom boats actually have more initial stability than round bottom, and in the case of what you are talking about, one hell of a lot more. You will get more carrying capacity in a flat bottom boat as well. Round bottom will be easier to push. Neither boat cares if you are going upstream or down stream.

Gavin Atkin
12-23-2003, 01:49 PM
Re-reading your posts, I think you may be trying to get too much out of one boat - not least because the 20ft www.bateau.com (http://www.bateau.com) boat is likely to be heavy for one or two men to drag far from the water unless you've got some ingenious new kind of trailer that you can carry in your boat, and the landing places are equipped with smooth roadways.

Also, I'd suggest that a flat bottomed boat like the one shown will tend to give you a roughish ride in roughish water. Particularly if it's lightly loaded, with all that stability it'll have a strong tendency to follow the shape of the water it encounters: lumpy water will give you a lumpy ride. So the right choice depends on the kind of water you'll be travelling upon. If it's to be rough or variable, you may be better off with a drift boat of some kind.

Now, I have one more question, that I almost don't want to ask. How does one get large dead animals lying a distance from a river into a boat? I've never hunted - it doesn't appeal to me at all - but it seems to me there may be some practical problems connected with hunting for large animals in small boats.


PS - That Glide-Easy canoe is interesting, isn't it? Has anyone built a canoe using 1/8in ply and the birch-bark derived construction technique shown in the drawings?

12-23-2003, 02:36 PM
Thanks for your suggestions Gavin As for getttin a large animal in a boat. You don't. You clean it and quarter it first. But a quartered moose still weighs a lot. Can drift boats with motors go upstream well? Or is it like the smaller canoes with small outboards?

12-23-2003, 04:45 PM
I've done quite a lot of canoe camping and deer hunting in remote areas that I canoed into. I normally use a 17' Grumman canoe, but sometimes I go with my little 12' Grumman.
The 12' will handle myself, camping gear for a week, and a deer just fine. The 17' will handle myself, camping gear for a week, and two deer or two people and one deer.

I've never taken a moose, but I think the 17' canoe could handle about a half a moose (cutup and deboned), plus the other gear and myself.

I've run some Class III rapids with the 17' canoe, but I wouldn't try much more than a ripple with the little 12'.

The larger canoe is heavier, probably around 80 lbs. as opposed the the little canoe's 30 lbs. (rough estimates, I don't their weights)(I portaged the big one for 3 miles once, and thought it would kill me!)

However, the larger canoe paddles much easier, is easier to control, is faster, and is more stable than the little 12'. I shoot ducks out of my big canoe, but the little canoe is too tippy to be a good gun platform.
I once made a crossing of a large lake in Canada on a stormy day. The waves were about 3 feet high. I went straight downwind. All I had to do was steer, and hold on. My 17' canoe did the job just fine.
I would never have attempted that in my little canoe.

I don't use a motor on my canoes, but I have been in Dad's 17' canoe with the tiny 2 1/2 hp. outboard, and it moves right along! Dad used it extensively on the upper Delaware River where the current was sometimes rather strong.

Most of the square sterned canoes do not paddle well. Too much drag! I have seen one, a long time ago, in Minnesota, that had a flat transom for a motor mount, but that had a pointed stem under the flat area, so that drag was like any other canoe. It seems to me that should paddle as well as any other canoe. I've never seen another like it, and have no idea where to get one.
On the really large freighter canoes, unless you have a crew of people to help you paddle, I would rig it with oars for solo use.

As for hiding it in the woods - that's easy with my 12' and 17' models. I've done it many times. But, it is also easy to take a chain and padlock and secure the boat to a tree. Hide the paddles.

If you stay on relatively quiet rivers and lakes, a flat bottom skiff should be no problem. But, I wouldn't want to run any rapids with one. Also, in shallow streams or moose hunting from the boat along a shallow shoreline, I wouldn't want a motor to hit any sumerged rocks or logs, so you will need something that is easy to paddle or row.

If it was me, and I planned on wilderness trips after moose, I think I would go for a standard (pointy on both ends) 20' canoe. I could always build an outboard bracket for it and put on a motor, probably up to about 5 hp.
Then again - the best moose areas that I have seen require some portaging to get to. I think I'll stick with my 17'. If I ever get a moose I'll just have to make several trips to get it all packed out.

jan engberg
12-23-2003, 06:24 PM
The moose is the problem. There is no way you can load 1000 lbs of moose, yourself and all your gear in a canoe that can be paddled by one person. This is how I would do it: I would bring a 10ft deflated inflatable tender in my canoe, paddle/motor uppstream, hide the boats, shoot the beast, cut it up, load it in my then inflated tender, move the engine to the tender, tie the canoe alongside and motor home, If I run out of gas I would untie the canoe and paddle, towing the tender with all that good moose meat behind me.

12-23-2003, 08:19 PM
Ok the moose itself once dressed wouldn't weigh 1000lbs I was thinking somewhere in the neibhorhood of 5-600lbs plus me 130lbs (I know I'm tiny.) plus all my gear, about 250lbs I know thats a lot of gear but I would like to bring a large wall tent, much more comfortable. That adds up to 880-980lbs.

Todd Bradshaw
12-23-2003, 08:41 PM
Of course if you camp for about three days and turn all that moosemeat into jerky it'll be a lot lighter. One production boat that might fit the bill reasonably well is Old Town's 20' "XL Tripper". It will handle a pretty good sized side-mounted motor and has enough capacity to do the job. It's also a very tough canoe and should still paddle reasonably well for a big boat. Not a sliver of wood on it (other than thwarts) but one can't have everything.

[ 12-23-2003, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Todd Bradshaw ]

12-23-2003, 08:46 PM
thats perfect!! Except its not wood :( :( :( :( I don't know hmmm maybe I'll just sneak into a store that sells them and take the lines off of it hehe. I don't know its perfect but its not wood.

12-23-2003, 09:04 PM
SSD - look at the same sight for the Guide 20 in the Classic wood section: Old Town - Classic Wood Canoes (http://www.oldtowncanoe.com/canoes_wood.php)

Good for 1000lbs smile.gif

Todd Bradshaw
12-23-2003, 11:43 PM
The 20' Guide is a pretty nice boat. A bit pricey these days but at least it's still available. Here's a better shot of it from the 1970 Old Town catalog. Back then it sold for $565. Ever wish you had a time machine?

I have always lusted after the 20' Chestnut "Ogilvie" model (top photo of this batch). With 3" wide ribs spaced only 1/2" apart it was a bit heavier-duty than the Old Town and catalog weight was only 8 lbs. more. Pretty hard to find these days though and I don't know who ended-up with the molds when the original Chestnut company was sold off. The V-stern Ogilvie model at lower left is also 20' and had the small transom above the double-ended waterline.

In any case, chopping up the moose definitly helps with the capacity question and starts to open-up the possibilities a bit more to include some boats like these which, though big and fairly heavy, still paddle pretty reasonably.

Todd Bradshaw
12-24-2003, 12:23 AM
Of course if you're looking to build, there is one source of REALLY traditional plans. The book "The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America" by Adney and Chapelle and published by the Smithsonian has a chapter on fur trade canoes with half-a-dozen models depicted. A couple are in the 20'-21' range and look like this:

The drawings don't have offsets - but when I built a modified strip version of one I had a friend blow-up the station and stem drawings. They were accurate enough that I didn't bother to loft-out the boat. I built the station forms, stuck them on the strongback and checked for fairness with battens. It took a little shimming here and there, but very little, and the boat turned out quite fair.


Unlike the Old Towns and Chestnuts, these boats had flared sides and fairly narrow bottoms. As the load was increased they sank farther into the water and the waterline beam got wider for stability. The load also functioned as ballast, increasing stability. Run lightly loaded, they are somewhat "twitchy". For non-fur-trade use, it's a good idea to redraw the stations and work in a tapered, cigar-shaped section of hull-bottom to increase the maximum beam by six to eight inches for more stability. It was fairly tricky stripping, but in general one of the most fun building jobs I've done. Might look a bit strange with a five-horse Merc hanging off the gunwale, but hey, if they would have had them, they would have used them.

[ 12-24-2003, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: Todd Bradshaw ]

12-24-2003, 09:46 PM
There is a transomed canoe from
called the Coorong that might fit the bill. Sorry I can't find a pic of it. Regarding the moose don't shoot it, arrest it and make it swimm towing the boat.

12-30-2003, 09:21 AM
Here is a free design from the 50's :



Wild Dingo
12-30-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by siberianswampdonkey:
Thanks Gavin but thats not really what I'm looking for.
Ok what do you think of this idea. [URL=http://www.boatplans-online.com/proddetail.php?prod=XF20]http://www.boatplans-online.com/proddetail.php?prod=XF20[/ URL]

My only concern is would that be dangerous going upstream in a flat-bottom hull?Seems to me that you are looking at two different horses here mate... a canoe compared to a flats boat? and a moose??? :eek:

If I can make a suggestion? What you need is the green beast!!!... So if we talk nicely to Bob Smalser he will hopefully post a pic of his green beast :cool: ... now that would seem to be ideal for your needs... first its wood... second it carries a good payload... third its moverable around rivers and such... fourthly you can build it out of whats on hand as he himself did.

If memory serves theres no plans and he built it from his noggin... but Im not sure of that maybe Bob can show the boat pic and draw out or discribe the build materials and measurement info?? Anyway its what I think would fit the whole shamozzle of what your trying to do... somehow I think the moose puts a canoe out of the frame and if your going the flats boat then why not look at a bit more of a rugged option?

Anyway its a thought ;)
Good luck with it mate

Paul H
12-30-2003, 10:56 AM
I'd actually planned on building exactly what you are talking about, but then got started on my Tolman Alaskan Skiff.

Anyhow, after looking at all the designs out there, what I planned to build was the freighter in the Kevlar Canoe Book, and add a wishbone transom for a small outboard.

Unfortunately you aren't going to get the capacity you want in a canoe that can be easily handled by one man, and made out of wood. A strip built would be close, but you'd still be carrying another 20-30 pounds over the same size kevlar boat. After having spent the last several years canoing after moose, unsucessfully in an over hunted, under moosed area, I realize that the best canoe is the lightest one possible.

If you're planning on using this in Alaska, you have to realize that you'll be competing against jet boats, air boats, john boats w/ go-devils, and rafts dropped off upstream from aircraft. To take advantage of a canoe, you'll need to get into water that no other craft can, and that requires as light a boat as possible.

My 2 cents.