Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst ... 234 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 105 of 155

Thread: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Zbigit
    Posts
    1,186

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???



    Surely something similar could be put together in strip plank or tortured plywood. It's pretty narrow, to allow for reasonable rowing, so it's probably going to be a bit of a workout to sail. On the other hand, it'll scoot along pretty darned good, and the single big mainsail should keep those who feel that jibs are a disaster in a row/sail boat, happier.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dorset, UK
    Posts
    914

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Tom, I'd agree that sleeping in the bilge could be uncomfortable. In the Solent, there's gloopy mud that might dissuade me from overnighting but then a sponge first and in a drysuit with a thick matress, it would be bearable for a solo man jihadi. The PNW looks cleaner though, more stoney beaches. Phoenix sounds stable enough on the thwarts, and I like how the thwarts slide around. The OP is 6'5" though...just lying further down will maximally enhance the boat and his stability and his body will likely be closer to the boats vertical center of pitch, maybe maybe not. In the Solent the tide generates waves even when there is zero wind which can make every solent shoreline a rolling anchorage here on the iow side.

    One thing that I dont like on Phoenix, being pernickity is the board going down only 45 degrees or so. Thats not most efficient in 2017 and I think Ross shoukd know better. When asked, he said it trapped less weed in his area. Perhaps so, but it should go vertical. If the sails cofe is close to the buoyancy center and we dont wish to move the mast forward, that leaves bringing the foil aft a tad, perhaps that interfere with the rowing position. These factors all inter relate, but walkabout has its board high aspect and not in interferance with the moveable thwart.

    With yawls the mast weight further forward of the center of pitching, makes pitching movements greater in greener waves, which reduces speed: as the bow buries the entry angle increases and the lcb position moves forward. The mast ossilations will be greater which will lead to detached flow over the sail. There is less effect with a narrower sail and oar type though which naturally pitch less and are less affected by changes in lcb etc. Walkabout has cheap quick light alloy masts which will reduce this affect.

    Its not a massive effect, a mizzen will put the mast forward say a foot, but that can be enough to send it into the foredeck which is now a punctured tank. Oughtred's solution is very elegant though. Compared that to a bermudan sloop rig, that will have its mast further aft closer to the center of pitching probably just infront of the centerboard.

    Small mizzen sails have a relatively high drag to lift. Putting the sail area into the main will make a yawl faster, if less well behaved at anchor. Even just dropping the mizzen down in light air and using the aft mast step can be faster without dragging it through the air.

    I like Phoenix its a great boat, one of the best sail and oar solo boats available. If I lived in the PNW i'd have to build a non hipster Hvalsoe Tern for my own self image. Frankly a two berth 26ft diesel motorcruiser with a dinette looks ideal! Back to those looking for a different kind of dirty weekend...a Penny Fee is a good candidate, but its a twin rowing position layout and no tankage, but the OP could adjusted that. Could be built light in 6mm with the reinforcement that comes with tanks and bulkheads etc and its very multistrake. Its abit wider at 5'4" and quite a stiff bilge. Its a sleeper that one. Gartsides stripped 15ft 147 has the best hull shape for sail and oar. Arguably a transom would make it faster, but pulled out to 17ft that would rip as it is. Beautifull curved hull. Another sleeper that should be light in glassed WRC. Doesnt have so much deckage/ tanks etc as the two being discussed. At 6'5" though i cant see finding a boat with more easy access space than a Walkabout for a light sail and oar boat. If I remember Osbert could row his easily at 4-4.5 knots. I'm pretty sure its especially good under oar. Your Phoenix would be very efficient also I'm sure. It also looks to have a very well balanced helm too.
    Last edited by Edward Pearson; 01-30-2018 at 06:21 PM.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Good points in post #68. But this:
    This is probably true. It took about 10 minutes of bailing to get a Phoenix III dry after capsizing.
    Do you think you'd be able to begin sailing (slowly) with the amount of water that was in the boat? I've asked Ross Lillistone about the installation of an auto-bailer in the Phoenix III and he supported it. In fact he told me that in all of his boats for personal use he has auto-bailers installed. If you could begin sailing immediately after a capsize do you think its fair to say that you might be able to let the auto-bailer do most of the work for you?
    I would plan to install an auto-bailer as it would also be a great feature in terms of safety and convenience if the boat took on some water but didn't capsize.
    Last edited by altabb; 01-30-2018 at 06:10 PM.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,179

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    A couple of points:
    1. Sleeping on the floorboards vs on a platform at thwart height. I built an Alaska and sailed it for hundreds of miles. It had a sleeping platform at thwart level. In our Salish Sea anchorages we frequently get wind waves or refracted swell or both. In those conditions, the platform is hard to sleep on, as the boat rocks and you are above the roll centre. It is, as James has put it, like trying to sleep atop a beach ball. I have spent many uncomfortable nights in this situation. Sleeping on floorboards, which I would recommend you add to any boat to keep yourself out of any muck and/or rain or seawater that has come aboard, you are sleeping below the roll centre of the boat, which feels more like being in a hammock. It's also warmer on cool nights as the sides of the boat block the wind better than a tent.
    After nearly 700 nm in my new boat sleeping on the floor boards, I know which I prefer.
    2. The utility of a yawl rig. With an Oughtred style rig and buoyancy/storage compartments in the ends, the foremast is not so far forward that there is any excessive pitching. It is not at all difficult to make the mast boxes, which pierce the compartments, watertight. Mind you, the smaller the boat, the more likely pitching is to be a problem. The mizzen on the yawl rig is just so handy for adjusting balance, heaving to for reefing or resting and acting as a tie point for the cockpit tent, that I can't imagine doing without it now.
    Alex

    "“He was unfamiliar with the sea and did not like it much: it was a place that made you cold and wet and sick” " Nevil Shute, Trustee From the Toolroom

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Fairfield, CA
    Posts
    1,287

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Just catching up, a couple comments on what's been said:
    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    In fact, the stringers completely eliminate the need to scarph planks, which can seem like an intimidating proposition to first-time builders.
    Walkabout's stringers did not eliminate scarphing the planks. They did allow the scarphs to be done on the boat in short pieces, instead of making up long planks off the boat then having to place the full 18+ feet, if that is what you meant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Pearson View Post
    If I remember Osbert could row his easily at 4-4.5 knots.
    I can row Walkabout at ~4.5 kts for a short sprint, but easy rowing cruise speed is more like 3 kts.

    Rick

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ESK, QLD, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    169

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    I've only just been made aware of this thread, and I must thank Wi-Tom for holding the fort. The idea of using Periwinkle plans won't help here, as a stretched Phoenix III has more sleeping space than Periwinkle, and the sleeping places in Periwinkle are bounded by web-frames - so she would also need to be lengthened! Below is the text of an email I have just sent to altabb:-

    Dear Alan,
    Thanks for keeping me in the loop.

    Lengthening a boat by increasing the station-spacing according to a strictly even proportion is a relatively safe way to travel. It is important that every longitudinal measurement be increased by the same proportion. This includes such things as the longitudinal offsets for the curve of the stem, and the longitudinal dimensions of the centerboard case and the centerboard (in its retracted state, of course). Other things include the developed shape of the keelson, for which there is a drawing showing the slot for the centerboard and case head-ledges. But as long as the longitudinal dimensions are all altered, the boat will be fine - in fact she will be a better, faster, and more stable boat. I would not alter the sails nor the spars - they should be made as per the plans.

    I've measured the sleeping flat length using CAD, and the distance is currently 6' 1-1/4", so you will need to use a factor of 1.09 for the longitudinal stretch. This will yield a sleeping flat of 6' 8" and an overall (to the inside of planking as per the lines drawing) length of 16' 4-3/16"

    Let me know if you would like more information.

    Wi-Tom (who has vastly more experience aboard Phoenix III than I have) is correct about internal clutter. I have had many beach-cruising trips degraded because of internal clutter, bilge-water, and too much rigging, but never have I had problems because of the lack of a mizzen. Having done a reasonable amount of sailing in a Micro and a Periwinkle, I am well aware of how nice it is to release the main-sheet and haul the mizzen in flat. However, I can be just a comfortable by slowing the boat with the sails of a cat or sloop rig released and allowing the tiller to gradually move to leeward without turning through the wind. Once the speed has come of the boat she will sit like a duck. In the case of a sloop, sheet the stay-sail or jib (if set flying) to the windward side, and in the case of a cat rig such as the balance lug on Phoenix III, just pull in a tiny bit on the main sheet until the boat sits where you want. Raising and lowering the centerboard small amounts will give good control of the attitude of the boat.

    Simplicity is the key to enjoyment as far as I am concerned.


    Last edited by Ross Lillistone; 01-31-2018 at 01:39 AM. Reason: Italics required

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,919

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by rgthom View Post
    Just catching up, a couple comments on what's been said:

    Walkabout's stringers did not eliminate scarphing the planks. They did allow the scarphs to be done on the boat in short pieces, instead of making up long planks off the boat then having to place the full 18+ feet, if that is what you meant.
    Rick,

    thanks for the clarification--it seems obvious in retrospect, with the boat 16+ feet long and a sheet of plywood only 8'. Sorry for the mistake.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Charleston, SC USA
    Posts
    82

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Very interesting thread, Phoenix v walkabout. I am currently building a Christmas Wherry, a Walt Simmons design that is similar to the Phoenix and walkabout, similar size and capabilities, sail, oar, cruise, add fishing Anybody have experience with this design and how it compares to the first two?

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,919

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by altabb View Post
    Do you think you'd be able to begin sailing (slowly) with the amount of water that was in the boat? I've asked Ross Lillistone about the installation of an auto-bailer in the Phoenix III and he supported it. In fact he told me that in all of his boats for personal use he has auto-bailers installed. If you could begin sailing immediately after a capsize do you think its fair to say that you might be able to let the auto-bailer do most of the work for you?
    An interesting question; I've never used an autobailer. The Phoenix III comes up from a capsize with the water level about an inch below the thwart. It's a significant amount of water, but I suppose it would be stable enough to sail. Slowly. And heavily. Which might not be such a good idea in the kinds of waves that are likely to be out there in capsize conditions. Hmm. So I really don't know. I do know I've never felt like I missed having autobailers, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by altabb View Post
    I would plan to install an auto-bailer as it would also be a great feature in terms of safety and convenience if the boat took on some water but didn't capsize.
    Honestly, that seems like it would be a waste of time and effort based on my experience. I've taken on water in my Alaska without capsizing, thanks to its lower freeboard--it's not that hard to do. I've never come close to taking on water over the side of the Phoenix III. You get a little spray aboard when beating, but that's about it. If you remember to make sure your passenger/crew is sitting on the rowing thwart while you steer to windward, you don't even get wet from the spray!

    Edit to add: OK, in about 2,000 miles of sailing in a Phoenix III, I've had maybe 3 waves break over the quarter when running or broad reaching. But again, I never got to a point where I needed to stop sailing to bail the water out. It's about as dry a boat can be for its size and volume.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Houston, Texas USA
    Posts
    158

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    The one advantage of Phoenix3 over Walkabout is the pivoting centerboard. I think the rigid daggarboard limits you in some cases or at least keeps you on your toes a bit more.
    Scott

  11. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ESK, QLD, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    169

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    I've been corresponding with altabb regarding the possibility of stretching Phoenix III, should he decide that she is his choice.

    Given that stretching the boat will require hundreds of small proportional multiplications, I've experimented with my faithful old 2D CAD program (which I use for the working drawings) and have been able to produce a stretched inboard profile, and will complete the stretch for all of the remaining eighteen sheets, including all dimensions. The stretch factor is 1.09, yielding a boat which is 16' 6-7/8" LOA to the outside of the outer stem, and 4' 7-7/16" BOA (i.e. same as the standard boat) to the outside of the gunwales.

    The stretched boat's displacement in salt-water, at her DWL (she can go lower if required), is 338kg/743lbs vs 310kg/682lbs for the standard boat.

    Interestingly the predicted total resistance at 5 knots is lower for the longer boat, being only only 94% of the resistance of the standard hull while carrying 109% of the load.

  12. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dorset, UK
    Posts
    914

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Stretching a boat is sub optimal naval architecture.

  13. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern Europe
    Posts
    9,453

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Both of these designs have been around long enough for the pros and cons to be well known, and much of the details of use might be a personal bias for one thing or another, or due to personal physical size.
    In the possible other designs, having looked at the above boats before building, i went for a Michalak family skiff. The space between the two watertight stowage bouyancy chambers gives a cockpit 7ft long, with options to sleep on either the side benches, or the sole, or even an infill between the benches for a raised sleeping platform of queen size proportions. Never got close to running out of storage room, the aft self draining well and outboard mount, a bit unusual on a boat this size, but it all works. Single balanced lug has proved enough, though i have toyed with the idea of adding a mizzen, Stan Roberts has done a few events in his in more challenging conditions than i face locally. What it isnt, compared to the other designs, is a good rowing boat, my days of rowing for hours on end are over, so that particular performance was not required, though i am sure it would row far better with oars longer than 6ft6in, my oars at least stow under the side benches when not in use. I built mine slightly lighter than specified with no damage so far, in around 200 hours. I have a visual aversion to some leeboards, so used an off-set daggerboard set into the bench, which does not effect sleeping on it. Not everyones cup of tea, but a simple to build, versatile little load carrier that stills puts a smile on my face every time i gets used.






    I might consider boxing in the front of the benches to reduce the amount of water in the cockpit, it holds a LOT, and even a small coaming around the cockpit would make fixing a deck tent easy, but hooks can be easily screwed under the wide rub rail. I sail on a lake where the water temperture suggests a boat that is not going to sink even when flooded, and easy to self right, it was a good choice for my use. I would definately love to sail a P111 in company, i think its far less likely to bang sailing upwind in a chop.

  14. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,919

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Pearson View Post
    Stretching a boat is sub optimal naval architecture.
    Edward,

    can you explain your thinking on this? I thought it was the general consensus that a longer boat, keeping all else the same, will have decreased drag resistance (as Ross's post above suggests) and increased stability. How is that sub-optimal?

    The result here is an entirely different boat from something like the Periwinkle, which is much bigger by volume. I for one think a 16'+ Phoenix III might be a boat I like even more than the original. A good compromise, maybe, between the 15' version and the 18-19' boats the sail and oar guys like in the PNW.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  15. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,919

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Thanks for posting--I've been aboard Stan's Weekend Skiff and really loved it (which honestly surprised me a little). It is extremely comfortable, and big enough volume that you sit INSIDE it, quite protected. It's a different aesthetic, but really practical for sure. Quite a bit bigger than the boats under discussion here, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by skaraborgcraft View Post
    I might consider boxing in the front of the benches to reduce the amount of water in the cockpit, it holds a LOT...
    For cruising, do you think that space is large enough to take some big dry bags lashed under instead? That would decrease the water aboard in a capsize, and make it easy to unload gear without shoving it into compartments through small hatches.

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  16. #86
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Fairfield, CA
    Posts
    1,287

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by soudsa View Post
    The one advantage of Phoenix3 over Walkabout is the pivoting centerboard. I think the rigid daggarboard limits you in some cases or at least keeps you on your toes a bit more.
    I know Alan is going with PIII (for several reasons) but Walkabout does have an option for pivoting centerboard (Osbert's has this):



    Aaand, just for the leeboard fans, that has been done as well (Martyn Long's build):


  17. #87
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern Europe
    Posts
    9,453

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Thanks for posting--I've been aboard Stan's Weekend Skiff and really loved it (which honestly surprised me a little). It is extremely comfortable, and big enough volume that you sit INSIDE it, quite protected. It's a different aesthetic, but really practical for sure. Quite a bit bigger than the boats under discussion here, though.



    For cruising, do you think that space is large enough to take some big dry bags lashed under instead? That would decrease the water aboard in a capsize, and make it easy to unload gear without shoving it into compartments through small hatches.

    Tom

    Yeah looks are utilitarian, but funny enough, in a marina full of Scandinavian boats and some real sweet local double enders, I got many people go out there way to talk in my first summer. I think a society that had grown up with big boxy Volvos where somehow drawn to it.......even if they did not want to be, that and no locals except me use a balanced lug.
    Bags under the benches without a doubt. As i mostly single-hand, the two stowage lockers have more than enough space. When left on a mooring during rain is when she really fills, though a good cover would cure that issue. Its just less water surge when filled if the seats were boxed. "In" the boat is a point worth noting, my better half felt more comfortable knowing she could lean back without falling over the side. I have had no issues launching solo from the trailer, but i cant pull the existing trailer up the ramp by myself, but its way over capacity for the skiff. I have been meaning to make up a seperate launching dolly, and it has been car topped on a Volvo estate......really should have got a picture of that.

  18. #88
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ESK, QLD, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    169

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Here is a basic plan and inboard profile showing the proportions of Phoenix III stretched longitudinally by a factor of 1.09, resulting in an LOA of 16ft 6-7/8ins

    Last edited by Ross Lillistone; 02-01-2018 at 05:49 PM.

  19. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Fairfield, CA
    Posts
    1,287

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Ross' stretch drawing reminded me that I had sketched the hull shape of Walkabout before building, to get an idea of the sleeping space. Top is my 14' Whitehall, bottom is the stock Walkabout, and middle is the stretched 17' 8" Walkabout that I decided to build. The figure is 6' 4".


  20. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ESK, QLD, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    169

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Thanks, rgthom. Here is an addition to the profile drawing of the stretched Phoenix III showing a 6' 2" human figure. There is plenty of extra foot and head-room.


  21. #91
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,919

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross Lillistone View Post
    Thanks, rgthom. Here is an addition to the profile drawing of the stretched Phoenix III showing a 6' 2" human figure. There is plenty of extra foot and head-room.

    Ross,

    thanks for posting. I find a stretched Phoenix very intriguing. Very. Intriguing.

    Is that a Phoenix IV, then?

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  22. #92
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Fairfield, CA
    Posts
    1,287

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    I hope this is not a thread hijack, it does relate to the comparison of the two boats. This discussion got me to go back and model an alternate sleeping arrangement for Walkabout. This is as designed, on the sole:



    Welsford's new and similar design, Long Steps, does not use the sole for sleeping. It has a raised forward platform, which drains to the aft area. Something like that might be good for Walkabout also, it reduces the area for water to slosh about in the boat and keeps the sleeping area dry. To make it work, I would have to remove the forward section of the side seats (the center open space pinches down too tight toward the bow). I think that is fine, I do not sit there and the storage space is minimal inside the seats. Then I would add a raised sole forward, just to the height of the first plank and to the first bulkhead. The model looks like this:



    Might work, what do you guys think?
    Last edited by rgthom; 02-01-2018 at 10:50 PM.

  23. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    228

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Does the sleeping surface really slope aft as shown? I find it intolerable to try and sleep with my head lower than the rest of my body.

  24. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Fairfield, CA
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike V. View Post
    Does the sleeping surface really slope aft as shown? I find it intolerable to try and sleep with my head lower than the rest of my body.


    Good point. It should have some slope in order to drain. Maybe would not have to follow the plank line at that angle.
    Head forward is the other way, but it’d be claustrophobic if I don’t open the deck there also.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,186

    Default

    The boat will shift off its waterlines with the crew up there anyway, bringing it closer to level, if not all the way.
    -Dave

  26. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross Lillistone View Post
    Thanks, rgthom. Here is an addition to the profile drawing of the stretched Phoenix III showing a 6' 2" human figure. There is plenty of extra foot and head-room.

    Ross is this a 6'2" human figure? I'd have thought there would appear to be even more room given that the sleeping space has been stretched to 6'8". Perhaps I'm having difficulty in estimating the the extra space as it appears in the scale drawing.

  27. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ESK, QLD, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    169

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Alan, the space between the aft bulkhead and the point where the sloped aft edge of the centreboard case intersects the plane of the main thwart is 6' 8-7/16". Not bad when you consider that normal Naval Architectural practice seems to be to plan on either 6' 2" or 6' 4" for a bunk (with 22" as the standard minimum width, I believe). So what you see there is generous for a tiny beach-cruiser. Note Tom Pamperin's comments (WI-Tom) regarding space available for sleeping in the standard length Phoenix III.

  28. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    346

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Not bad when you consider that normal Naval Architectural practice seems to be to plan on either 6' 2" or 6' 4" for a bunk (with 22" as the standard minimum width, I believe
    That was typical for the 1970's Ross, but now its 6ft- 6" to 7ft. With custom boats, typically you want the bed length to be 8" - 10" longer than your client, if space allows.
    A single berth minimum width is now considered to be 26"-39" wide, while double berths are now considered to be 45" - 54" wide. Bigger boats can go wider if the space allows (60" to 78")
    Hope this helps mate
    Last edited by Mark Bowdidge; 02-02-2018 at 08:54 AM.

  29. #99
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    northwestern Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,919

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross Lillistone View Post
    Note Tom Pamperin's comments (WI-Tom) regarding space available for sleeping in the standard length Phoenix III.
    In particular, I rest my head on a pillow leaned against the sloping aft end of the centerboard case, which gains another 6-8" of length easily. Even the standard Phoenix is good for a 6' 2" human (actually, we've slept aboard pretty comfortably with two people 6' 2" and 6' 3").

    Tom
    You don't have to be prepared as long as you're willing to suffer the consequences.

    www.tompamperin.com

  30. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dorset, UK
    Posts
    914

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by WI-Tom View Post
    Edward, can you explain your thinking on this? I thought it was the general consensus that a longer boat, keeping all else the same, will have decreased drag resistance (as Ross's post above suggests) and increased stability. How is that sub-optimal?

    Tom
    I'm splitting hairs, of course a stretched P3 would be a mighty fine vessel, fabulous to own and sail and I like all of Ross's work.

    But for the record, and the purposes of sharpening my pencil...

    If you stretch equally along it's waterline you will increase it's waterplane area. This increases its stability to more than necessary for the sail area that you had previously selected as ideal for your boat in your conditions. You should in fact make the waterline beam narrower when you stretch longer to maintain the same stability.

    This has further usefull affects. Firstly the horizontal and vertical entry and exit angles will now be lower. This increases laminar flow into higher speeds. Visually you would see less wake and less deflected spray in chop. Secondly by affording a narrower waterline you further reduce the boats wave making resistance at higher froude speeds. You also mitigate the increased wetted area that would otherwise increase resistance at lower froude speeds. By only increasing the boats waterline but not making in correspondingly narrower you do not get all these benefits.

    You will also increase the designed displacement. If we calculate the desired target displacement for a lightweight solo sail and oar boat, the boat would need to weigh no more than 120kg to be trolley'able up an incline. This is achievable for a narrow 15ft 6mm occume plywood boat. Add to that a post industrial western solo oarsman at 90kg, with 20kg of gear and 20kg of food and water and our target displacement is 250 kilos.

    If you lengthen the waterline, the necessary displacement to make the boat sit to that new waterline now increases. So you have to add weight to make it sit in the water correctly beyond what the extra structure would weigh. Higher displacement increases wetted area and wave making resistance at all speeds. If you choose not to add the necessary extra weight, your boat will sit high in the water and it will not have the predicted stabiiity, waterline length or waterline shape as drawn, built or painted. CAD and CNC will only make those things precisely incorrect.

    The time when it does just about work, is when you substantially lengthen a solo rower to a tandem rower. The extra design displacement so created is compensated for by the extra crew weight and power.

    For solo work, in Phoenix 3's case her designed displacement is actually too high. Ross has designed it for two people's weight and no gear (310kg). This would be fine for a boat with two equally spaced rowing stations (like Penny Fee) and for a waterline optimised for two people to row (18ft) but for a solo boat with just one rowing station correctly spaced over the boats longitudinal center of buoyancy, it's what might be described as an inconsistency. The boat would be faster and actually more stable designed to a lower displacement. By 'stretching it' you may take the suboptimal waterline towards the correct length but you also take P3's target displacement in the wrong direction (340kg). So it factually won't sit on the desired longer waterline either, even if nobody notices.

    P3 has further inconsistencies. A relative long narrow sail and oar boat cannot naturally sit high in the water on its side. It is relatively easier for a long narrow sail and oar boat to support side tanks, without putting the centerboard out of reach of the helm in the water. This will speed recovery from a capsize. 10 minutes spent bailing at just 1 knot drift is a 300 meters fall to leeward, while not under control. Add 5-10 minutes beating back to your capsize position and you are now 15 minutes behind the similarly capsized Walkabout. Sleeping space along side the centerboard isn't compromised because the arrangement on P3 is to sleep on the adjustable side seating. So fitted, there would be less water in the boat after it righted, so the top of the centerboard case can then be lowered level to the thwart and made higher aspect which will increase upwind lift for the same area, or if lift is sufficient reduced in area to reduce drag. Less water, contained close to the centerline after righted means the forward bulkhead can be made lower, and a half bulkhead used forward to now provide space under the foredeck for oar and spar storage.

    If you compare to Walkabout, I believe she was designed for the boat's weight plus one big Maine oarsman from the off (correct designed displacement) on the correct solo waterline (16ft) with side tanks (optimised recovery) with an off centerboard to enable that sleeping oarsman to actively lower the weights center of gravity in any cross swell. An off centerboard is the end design solution to sleeping on a narrow sail and oar boat without taking a saw to your main structural thwart and turning it into a bar. Twin off center canted centerboards would give more advantage for the little additional weight and trouble - the boards will go deeper as it heels and can now be asymeterical like a 'proper' wing. This increased lift means that they can be smaller, drag will be reduced and you will be faster upwind. There are practical advantages of centerboads but performance advantages of daggerboards but for the record twin off center canted assymetical daggerboards would perform optimally as the NACA section isn't lost as the board pivots or changes its immersed depth. Of note Walkabout has all options both port and starboard available.
    Last edited by Edward Pearson; 02-02-2018 at 11:51 AM.

  31. #101
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Fairfield, CA
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Bowdidge View Post
    That was typical for the 1970's Ross, but now its 6ft- 6" to 7ft. With custom boats, typically you want the bed length to be 8" - 10" longer than your client, if space allows.
    A single berth minimum width is now considered to be 26"-39" wide, while double berths are now considered to be 45" - 54" wide. Bigger boats can go wider if the space allows (60" to 78")
    Hope this helps


    That seems like more width than you need on a little sail and oar boat. Walkabout has 25", which fits a self inflating pad and is plenty for a big guy (6' 4", 210). The extra length is good, though.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by rgthom; 02-02-2018 at 10:30 AM. Reason: Stupid Tapatalk punctuation

  32. #102
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    346

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Yea that's fine Rgthom. The main reason for the increase in berth sizes etc as far as standards are concerned , is because as a society, we become larger and fatter. LOL

  33. #103
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern Europe
    Posts
    9,453

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Glad to see Eds pencil is still sharp.....nice one.

  34. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts
    14

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Ross Lillistone View Post
    Alan, the space between the aft bulkhead and the point where the sloped aft edge of the centreboard case intersects the plane of the main thwart is 6' 8-7/16". Not bad when you consider that normal Naval Architectural practice seems to be to plan on either 6' 2" or 6' 4" for a bunk (with 22" as the standard minimum width, I believe). So what you see there is generous for a tiny beach-cruiser. Note Tom Pamperin's comments (WI-Tom) regarding space available for sleeping in the standard length Phoenix III.
    Yes I think 6' 8-7/16" is more than ample for a sleeping space. I just wanted to confirm that dimension because I think I was having trouble visualizing how much extra room (a lot as it turns out) there actually is in the scale drawing.
    Last edited by altabb; 02-02-2018 at 02:26 PM.

  35. #105
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    ESK, QLD, AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    169

    Default Re: Phoenix III OR Walkabout OR ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Pearson View Post
    I'm splitting hairs, of course a stretched P3 would be a mighty fine vessel, fabulous to own and sail and I like all of Ross's work.
    Thank-you, Edward


    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Pearson View Post
    If you stretch equally along it's waterline you will increase it's waterplane area. This increases its stability to more than necessary for the sail area that you had previously selected as ideal for your boat in your conditions. You should in fact make the waterline beam narrower when you stretch longer to maintain the same stability.
    Edward, I want any increase in stability I can obtain. This is a sailing dinghy, not a passenger ship which has to consider passenger comfort when rolling. Here is a quote from L. Francis Herreshoff - "While figuring stability is necessary with large steamers which have been designed to roll slowly............with a sailing yacht the thing that wants to be done is to is to increase the stability as much as possible. And a knowledge of the amount of stability is not nearly as important as thinking of ways of increasing stability without increasing head-on resistance. So I will not waste your time(and I hope you will not) in thinking about stability when the only thing about it of any value is to increase it."


    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Pearson View Post
    You will also increase the designed displacement. If we calculate the desired target displacement for a lightweight solo sail and oar boat, the boat would need to weigh no more than 120kg to be trolley'able up an incline. This is achievable for a narrow 15ft 6mm occume plywood boat. Add to that a post industrial western solo oarsman at 90kg, with 20kg of gear and 20kg of food and water and our target displacement is 250 kilos.
    Edward, I did not have a target displacement at the time I designed Phoenix III - other than her having enough for a solo sailor with minimal gear based on my long experience in cruising dinghies. Anything extra was a bonus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Pearson View Post
    If you lengthen the waterline, the necessary displacement to make the boat sit to that new waterline now increases. So you have to add weight to make it sit in the water correctly beyond what the extra structure would weigh. Higher displacement increases wetted area and wave making resistance at all speeds. If you choose not to add the necessary extra weight, your boat will sit high in the water and it will not have the predicted stabiiity, waterline length or waterline shape as drawn, built or painted. CAD and CNC will only make those things precisely incorrect.
    Phoenix III is a light-weight (lighter the better for beach-cruising) boat, and I want her to float as high as possible, given that she relies on crew-weight for ballast.


    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Pearson View Post
    For solo work, in Phoenix 3's case her designed displacement is actually too high. Ross has designed it for two people's weight and no gear (310kg). This would be fine for a boat with two equally spaced rowing stations (like Penny Fee) and for a waterline optimised for two people to row (18ft) but for a solo boat with just one rowing station correctly spaced over the boats longitudinal center of buoyancy, it's what might be described as an inconsistency. The boat would be faster and actually more stable designed to a lower displacement. By 'stretching it' you may take the suboptimal waterline towards the correct length but you also take P3's target displacement in the wrong direction (340kg). So it factually won't sit on the desired longer waterline either, even if nobody notices.
    Edward, I admire your analysis, but I'm afraid that I was thinking along very different lines.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Pearson View Post
    P3 has further inconsistencies. A relative long narrow sail and oar boat cannot naturally sit high in the water on its side. It is relatively easier for a long narrow sail and oar boat to support side tanks, without putting the centerboard out of reach of the helm in the water. This will speed recovery from a capsize. 10 minutes spent bailing at just 1 knot drift is a 300 meters fall to leeward, while not under control. Add 5-10 minutes beating back to your capsize position and you are now 15 minutes behind the similarly capsized Walkabout. Sleeping space along side the centerboard isn't compromised because the arrangement on P3 is to sleep on the adjustable side seating. So fitted, there would be less water in the boat after it righted, so the top of the centerboard case can then be lowered level to the thwart and made higher aspect which will increase upwind lift for the same area, or if lift is sufficient reduced in area to reduce drag. Less water, contained close to the centerline after righted means the forward bulkhead can be made lower, and a half bulkhead used forward to now provide space under the foredeck for oar and spar storage.
    I have written extensively on this matter in the past, and I do not want side tanks in any of my sailing designs - in my power boats, maybe (see Fleet), but definitely not in a sailing dinghy which will not have a rescue boat handy (as is the case in round-the-buoys racing). I want my cruising dinghies to float on their sides after a capsise, with the mast close to being parallel with the water surface. I've been sailing cruising dinghies for almost my entire life (I'm nearly 64) and have recovered from a number of capsises. My comments are based on long experience. In addition, I do not​ want the forward bulkhead and buoyancy tank lowered for storage space. I want the maximum volume of sealed buoyancy tank as high as possible in the boat - again based on my experience in self-rescue in rough water off the coast of Australia.
    Last edited by Ross Lillistone; 02-02-2018 at 07:12 PM. Reason: Punctuation

Posting Permissions

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