Builders' Forum Archives
I LIKE IT!!!!
Posted by J.Schott on Jun 4, 2005
I just got back from the testing the yet unknamed boat. Three words discribe it:tippy, nimble and quick! I hate to compare anything to an Artic Hawk, but it has very similar handling characteristics. I wouldn't dare say it's as good as but it's close. I was a bit hesitant to do much edging due to the lack of a coaming so that will have to be tested later. I would compare the stability to the wr180, tippy but not scary. I do have pics for proof that it floats and I will post them when my wife gets back from the zoo with the camera.
I wanted to start a new thread because we kinda took over Brian's thread. Anyway, the boat is a modified ch17. I called it a "lt" because I lowered the sheer 1". I couldn't leave well enough alone and narrowed it to 22". This was acomplished by narrowing each bottom panel by 1". I came up with the offsets by finding the factor to muliply the original measurements to come up with the new ones.If I remember right the factor was 0.9 . once I got to the ends, the panels were blended in to the original last three stations to retain the profile of the original design. When the panels were drawn they looked exactly like the bottom panels of my ch17 just narrower. Have I confused anyone? I'm starting to get a little confused my self. When stiched together, the hull confomed to my desired shape. I measured the chine angles and compared them to my ch17, they were dead on except from the cockpit back. The reason for that is another one of my modifications. I was drawing out the side panels and wondered what a Artic Hawk stern would look like on this. So I started messing with it and decided to go for it. If I didn't like it, whack it off. (Starting to see a pattern here? Artic Hawk=My dream boat) What ended up happening was that the aft panels started to develop more flair than if the stern was flat like the chesapeake series. Turns out I liked it and figured it could only help stability, so the stern was a keeper. My theory is that the pointed stern did something else. Somehow when it was all stiched together. I ended up with about 1.75" of rocker. I can explain it to myself but have a hard time trying to put it into words. Maybe Lee will chime in and explain it. He has a great ability to write things in a way that even I can understand.
To answer a question in the "lightweight tech" thread, I used 3mm on the side panels and the deck. I'm a bit on the heavy side so I felt that 3mm bottom panels was not worth the risk. The only drawback to using 4mm bottom and 3mm sides was where the panels met at the bow and stern, the thickness difference left a ridge at the point where the four panels met. The solution was pretty simple, I spaced the side panels with toothpicks so they would be flush with the bottom panels. The ends were formed with an epoxy rub strip (like the AH) so the gap was not a problem. My fingers are cramping now, haven't typed this much since....well....um, ever! I'll post the pics and post the link later today.
p.s.-Brian, I hope that your question was answered. We kinda hijacked your thread and went off on a tangent.