Flying Saucer vs Zip bare hull weight

Outboard designs up to 14'

Moderator: ttownshaw

davidmc
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 8:29 pm

Flying Saucer vs Zip bare hull weight

Postby davidmc » Sun May 01, 2011 8:33 pm

Hi Guys,

I am trying to decide between these boats as a project. One of the differences I see in the plans is that the bare hull weight of the Flying Saucer is 190lbs and the Zip is 375lbs. This seems like a big weight difference for a 2 foot hull length difference (beam and height are the same). Are these weights accurate. I would be interested in building the Flying Saucer if I can get the weight down to that level.

Thanks,
Dave

User avatar
vupilot
Posts: 3208
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 7:36 am
Location: Indy
Contact:

Re: Flying Saucer vs Zip bare hull weight

Postby vupilot » Mon May 02, 2011 5:58 am

I never weighed my Zip so I have no idea but that sounds accurate enough, each one will be a little different. Just curious, if you dont mind me asking, why is the weight such a concern?

Moeregaard
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 11:31 pm
Location: Thousand Oaks, California

Re: Flying Saucer vs Zip bare hull weight

Postby Moeregaard » Mon May 02, 2011 10:27 am

I can't imagine the bare hull weight of the Zip being 375 lbs. We fitted ours to the trailer after the decking was installed, but without seats, and two of us were able to lift it onto the bunks. We guessed it at 200-250 lbs, max., and I would expect the Flying Saucer to be just a few lbs. less, since it's nothing more than a stretched Zip.

-Mark Shipley
A boat is just a wooden box with no right angles.

User avatar
Iggy
Posts: 1497
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:00 pm
Location: Leduc (Edmonton), Alberta

Re: Flying Saucer vs Zip bare hull weight

Postby Iggy » Mon May 02, 2011 11:39 am

The heavy part is the plywood.. which is a pretty good portion of the area on a smaller boat and a 2' difference would account for quite a bit. I am not sure it would account for double the weight, however.

You can actually estimate the hull weight of a boat pretty accuratly by using the bill of materials + average lumber/plywood weights.

Like Vupilot mentioned... is there any particular reason you are concerned about weight?
Ian (aka Iggy)
My Malahini Build

pamelalynne1
Posts: 398
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Flying Saucer vs Zip bare hull weight

Postby pamelalynne1 » Mon May 02, 2011 2:48 pm

And all along I thought the Zip was a stretched Flying Saucer. :D Or is the Flying Saucer a shrunken Zip?
If you look at the Rebel and Ski Tow each of them is 400 lbs. I would think the Zip might be more like 300. But that depends on what you put in it. My Squirt gained about 40 lbs between stretching it a foot and using oak frames and oak cockpit flooring.

davidmc
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 8:29 pm

Re: Flying Saucer vs Zip bare hull weight

Postby davidmc » Mon May 02, 2011 8:08 pm

The reason for light weight is I want to go electric with it. I realize its not going to have the performance of the gas versions, but it should be comfortable for my uses.

I guess if they are the same frames and the only difference is two feet, the weight must come from the finishes for extra wood planking on the deck.

I want to build a nice woody looking boat with an outboard - that way I can change power sources down the road.

Thanks for the information guys.

murphasa
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2016 1:56 pm

Re: Flying Saucer vs Zip bare hull weight

Postby murphasa » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:11 pm

Hi, I've just come across this thread as I'm having the same concerns/confusions as Dave right now... My issues regarding weight stem from a 20 hp limitation on my lake. Just curious Dave, what boat did you end up building and how satisfied are you with the outcome?

Also, I haven't seen the actual plans for either the FS or the Zip; is it possible that the two plans suggest the usage of two different wood species that account for a significant weight difference?

I'm starting to think more and more that I'll just build a Zip regardless and strap on a 35, then see if I can't find a 20hp motor cowl that fits and perform a little aftermarket engine mod...

User avatar
Bill Edmundson
Posts: 10313
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:45 am
Location: Birmingham, AL, USA
Contact:

Re: Flying Saucer vs Zip bare hull weight

Postby Bill Edmundson » Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:36 pm

Oak is heavy. Douglas Fir is the lightest. Okume is the lightest ply and great to work with. Sorry, I don't know the power ranges on the Zip. But, I think a 20 would push it with 2 people.

I think you might get low to mid twenties.

Bill
Mini -Tug, KH Tahoe 19 & Bartender 24 - There can be no miracle recoveries without first screwing up.
Tahoe 19 Build

jplatou
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 6:43 pm

Re: Flying Saucer vs Zip bare hull weight

Postby jplatou » Tue Nov 08, 2016 12:31 pm

If you are concerned with HP limits, the newer outboards build since 1984 are rated at prop shaft not crank shaft, performance is very different. My 9 year old grandson has a 8' Minimost I helped him build, a 1973 6hp Evinude pushes it 15/17 mph, a 1984 Evinrude 6 HP pushes it 21/22mph.

The other factor is if the engine is at the top of the HP offered for a given displacement. If a larger HP engine is detuned to be sold at a reduced HP, it is usually stronger than a smaller displacement engine with the same rated HP. HP at rated rpm may be close, but the HP at lower engine rpm may be quite different.

Profile of the gear case is another big factor as are props available for that gear case.

I am a member of Antique Outboard Motor Club, I have a lot of outboards! I run most on my 1988 Lowe Line 16 Big Jon, with a 48 inch bottom. It weights about 250 pounds bare. I get the following GPS top speeds with just me absolute best conditions , (all engines are propped correctly and are in good tune):
2006 Mercury 4 stroke 25 HP 36 MPH / 13 MPG at 20 MPH?
1960 Evinrude 40 HP 33MPH / maybe 6MPG @ 20 MPH (same engine on my 1960 lapstrake Cruiser;s Inc,700#, top is 27MPH and maybe 5 MPG at 20)
1981 Evinrude 25 HP 32MPH / maybe 9 MPG @ 20 MPH
1939 Evinrude 22.5 HP 20 MPH MPG do not know. Uses a quart of oil for every gallon of fuel, smoke+++++
1963 Evinrude 18 HP 22 MPH / maybe 7 mpg @ 20 MPH

Add one 200 pound person and lose 4/5 MPH at 30MPH plus and 2/3 MPH for lower HP! Weight is very important either gained by passenger weight or hul weight makes little difference except for weight placement!


Return to “Small outboards”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests