Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Steel and aluminum boatbuilding. See: "Boatbuilding Methods", in left-hand column of the Home page, for information about alloys.

Moderator: billy c

electric tug
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby electric tug » Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:50 pm

Hi Jakub,
I thought about doing this.-the problem lies in 1. the costs of a boiler and engine.
and 2. the weight of the boiler being up above the dwl thereby decreasing the righting moment. in other words, if he rolls the roll period would be larger, and longer, probably not good, having said that the boat would be great for it.

to make it work likely I would lay the boiler down though, i.e. an HFT boiler of about 90-120 sq ft. all that weight below...hmmm.

and then how do you feed the fire? there isn't room to stoke it.

steam is a hassle. but I love it!, sadly it just isn't practical for my needs. also consider that the prop for an 18 hp steam engine turning 500 rpms would be massive- like 36-40 inches. no room for that under the Murph.

to any and all reading. I have a huge, possibly, project stopping dilemma. I cannot find a 4:1 gear for an engine in the 20-50 hp range. they just don't make them. so it means a custom gear- that requires too deep of pockets for me. I have looked at everything from hydraulics to using a chain drive and all of them fail either being to expensive or to big to fit into the small engine space.
I have even toyed with v-drives and doubling up the gearing by using two tranny's but that's gonzo engineering, and a new v-drive is pricey try starting at 3k!

it has to be a 20- 22 inch prop. period...ugh

I am not settling on the 14 inch prop that the standard 2:1 gear provides. its "go big or go home" kind of thing.
any suggestions? need at least 25 hp- ideally 50 hp. need about 750 -850 rpms at the prop. heeeeellllppp!! :? :cry: :cry:

User avatar
aero_dan
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: Cassville, Missouri (SW MO)

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby aero_dan » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:05 pm

Hey Boss, Don't give up the ship... Here is a link I contemplated just before I settled on my system: http://www.tvtamerica.com/gearboxes.htm

Also, I know od a guy in the New England States that may have what you are lookin for. Are you dead-set on a Prop? I also lookes at some cool mini water tractor jets that would work and give you vectoring as well as no "hangdowns". The weight can be made up another way I found out if you need functional ballast, that is to say not something like a huge dead fin in the water. Just brain stormin here. I will look and find the guy from the N.E.
Dan
Better, faster, cheaper. Only ever found 2 of the 3! (But still lookin.)
So many boats, ...so little time.

User avatar
aero_dan
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: Cassville, Missouri (SW MO)

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby aero_dan » Tue Jun 30, 2015 7:20 pm

OK, Here is my best guess as to somebody that might be able to help, ... besides me. :lol:
http://www.soundmarinediesel.com/index.html

If those 2 don't work send me a PM and I will be glad to help a bit more... :P
Better, faster, cheaper. Only ever found 2 of the 3! (But still lookin.)
So many boats, ...so little time.

electric tug
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby electric tug » Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:48 am

Hey Dan,
I'm enjoying watching your tug progress. things slowed down for a few days here but my frames are complete minus the stringer slots and the chine holes. ill do them when I do the set up. Also got the problem solved regarding the power system. contacted Gayle and she talked to Mr. Witt, who said raising my motor up to allow for a gear reduction of 4:1 would be no issue. This is good news since it means most problems are solved. I will be able to have HUGE torque and hp. my prop will be around 22- 23 inch diameter! turning around 750-850 rpms max. running 500 rpms cruising at about 7 knots. ideal for the Great Lakes.

I was thinking of giving you shout in the coming days so if the offer is still open I'll do just that. but I think we are about 2 hours time diff.

I love the idea of your chine coolers. If they are below the waterline they will be an excellent cooler. I prefer raw water cooling for mine since the lakes are nice and clean, and cold. and I am lazy and want to keep things simple. plus I don't want to bang my chines on something like a rock, (which happens a lot on Georgian bay -It the most treacherous body of water to navigate in the entire world officially!)I am sure ill bounce of a few rocks from time to time, and that solid round is perrrty strong. But I did get tempted to look into it myself...where did you get the idea?...nice!
Just a quick note too- the patterns sheets have the dwl mark on them (at least for the FM patterns) when lofted easily give you the DWL marks. That is why they aren't needed on the frames. its faster and easier to just extend the given dwl line. all you do is extend the line given, across the loft floor. I built a 12 ft x 8 ft loft floor in 3/4 inch ply to do my frames. its real easy cuz the line crosses all the drawn out frames. so you just mark them where the line crosses. I aligned my frames and CL to the square ply, as a guide, thus I got the lines perfectly square and full length on the floor by using my drywall framing square(invaluable) and voila, it is perfectly square and centered both longitudinally and athwartships. HOWEVER, I don't really know yet why the DWL needs to be marked at all if you have the set up line? :?: is there some intended use for them or are they just to see if the frames are aligned on the strongback?

The set up level is 12 inches above the dwl, so you mark that also in the same fashion. the floors are given on the plans(are they on the goliath design too?. Not sure) It was necessary for me to use theses lines to get VERY accurate frames. I tried doing what you did, or at least a similar thing, which was to loft out only the half frame, then cut down the center line and then join the two frames sides. the floors would never be in good enough tolerance when cut to give accurate symmetrical frames. (at least the way I could do it unless I hade them cnc'd.)
anyway, I though- "this would be way easier"...(this was my last attempt 2 years ago on my first build) they DID NOT become symmetrical, and you need the full lines as a guide because only a fraction of a degree out i.e. weld distortion or whatever, puts the whole frames out. so when welding them up I needed to use my loft floor to get accurate angles and cuts. I am happy with my frames, although I am a perfectionist...they are not perfect.

but, they are within a very small tolerance, and I learned from the first set I did...what NOT to do. But if you were able to check your frames against the patterns on each side and they were within tolerance, then you found a new fast way to do it! congrats..

I really want to see you succeed! the floors took me all of about ten minutes each since I simply put a piece of flat bar under the completed frames and scribed them out and used the distance given in the plans from the DWL for each floor. cut them and welded them it was very quick. I made a video showing the close tolerances of perhaps 2- rarely 3 mm on everything, but my Friends phone is malfunctioning which took the video. I hope to post it right now, if it is not spun, which it appears to be...grrrr.

Also is there a way to simply cold form your stiffs? the plans say to do it this way and it looks pretty easy? but I never got that far before. My plan will be to wire them in place, or tack them then bend them by hand.

Btw did you plaz cut your slots? mine has trouble doing 1/4 inch. but should be ok with small cuts. are the slots parallel to the CL or are the angled? not mentioned in the plans. seems they would be angled to match the frames?

will be in touch Mr. Dan! great work so far...and yep- steel boatbuilding is fastest, least expensive and strongest way to build,
steel. is just better than wood inmho! a couple years ago I saw a 32 ft., 60+ knot, "Bandido" style offshore racer built in light steel.

I laughed at the simple minded thinking of your community and mine who cant understand displacement. But that's seems to be the general perception of the masses, they just don't get it. I try to explain that it is like wearing snowshoes. if you step into the snow your weight is focused on one spot. and you sink. but put on a snow shoes which distributes the same weight and you stay on top of the snow. Its funny I was trying to explain to a couple people how density and weight of water were factors in why a steel boat floats and why a wooden one sinks too just like steel (the machinery and equipment)but they couldn't get it...I am a horrid teacher though...lol

talk to you soon
cheers
Doug

User avatar
aero_dan
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: Cassville, Missouri (SW MO)

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby aero_dan » Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:47 am

Hey Doug,
Call any time. I am on Central time, same as you. I came up with the chine cooler idea after seeing a pile of this thick wall in the sheel shop (and praying about one of my concerns). The company had made a purchase of this stuff, I think is boiler tube. The wall is much thicker than regular thick-wall and is also thicker than the hull skin ,and is very hard like cold-rolled. I would have never considered this, if it had been hot-rolled like water pipe. Even sch. 80 pipe is too soft. Also, this stuff is like Mech tubing in-that there is no seam. And it came in 23' lengths.

I too have a lot of submerged obsticals in the lakes of the Ozarks, and being as this is being built and promoted as a "dock maintenance tug", I am aware of the tendency to "bump" stuff. However, I have found the flow rate and thermal conductance to be far more than is needed and may have to include a cooler thermostat. We will see how well it works when I first hit something. :lol:

I cut my keel, chine, sheer, and stiffener slots after set up also. There are angle issues to contend with, that will slightly effect depth. I cut a short 3" piece of each member to use as a slotting jig when cutting. I know I would build the second one better because I would have done a full width layout table for the frames. I found that I had a bit of distortion in a couple of my frames that I had to "adjust" like I think the texted plan says. I marked the waterline on the front and back of each frame to help me see the final setup was all in order. It was reassuring to see the lines line up when it was all on the chocks (building setup jig).

I had no problems with the plaz cutting even up to the keel stock. It was a bit slower in the thick keel stock, but fine. I had to change tips more frequently to keep the cut clean and sharp, but the tips were like $20/100, so I didn't mind.

And yes, I found all the marks I wanted to see, ... eventually. :lol: It is just that my OCD-ness was showing. I have been a draftsman for years in the A.F., and had to QC a lot of drawings from the newbies that did not have all the info in logical location. It was one of my pet peeves. "Make it plain, make it visable." My wife is a successful drafter/drsigner for a leading microchip manufacturer. She has found this advise to be priceless in her company. In her words, "Some of the Engineers dread me looking at their work, I bleed red ink all over them." :shock: :D :lol:

Also, I needed to trust my measurements better. On a couple of occasions, I thought I had done it right, and had to redo my redos. But they were minor, and not really worth mentioning in the blog.

On the "cold forming" of the stiffeners, I would not suggest it. I started to do that, and saw frames start to bend and shift from the stress. I am making a hand planisher to cold form the curves. It might be easier on the FM due to length and slightly less curve, but I doubt it. The hand planisher will make it so the steel will more easily lay into profile, and there will be less stress on the individual members and welds. One thing I have experienced in my world of custom fabrication, is to try to get things to fit naturally without having constant tension or spring in a joint. The joint will last longer and be less likely to be a point of, ...future concern.

I got the long frame air hammer yesterday, and the large head, treated bit is suppose to be here in a couple days. I will document the invention and testing soon.

Looking forward to the talks.

Cheers,
Dan
Better, faster, cheaper. Only ever found 2 of the 3! (But still lookin.)
So many boats, ...so little time.

electric tug
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby electric tug » Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:58 pm

Dan, wouldn't the ring roller roll the stiffies?

User avatar
aero_dan
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: Cassville, Missouri (SW MO)

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby aero_dan » Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:28 pm

Yes, I suppose it would if you were making transverse ribe for the Nina, Pinta, or the Santa Maria... It does consistant curves great, when you buy the square roller set that it does not come with. But, I am a bit slow when it comes to complex curves like the bottom of these tugs. There is more curve in the front, then less in the middle, and morein the aft, but less than the front . And, it seems to be a progressive curve as it goes. I am a bit of an old school metal worker I guess. I like to shape it on the frames and match the curves as I move along. But that is a good idea you had though. Just wait and see. You might even like this little contraption I have envisioned. The tracking number is promising to have the package here by early next week. I have a farm to run too, so It is OK. The fences need building, fixing, and the woods need clearing and seeding. I doubt I will be making a an entry in my blog this week, ... maybe next. :)
Better, faster, cheaper. Only ever found 2 of the 3! (But still lookin.)
So many boats, ...so little time.

JaTro
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 1:34 pm
Location: Praha, CZ, Europe

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby JaTro » Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:57 am

Hi again,
sorry for hijacking the thread.
I was inspired by this man http://www.rogersmachine.net/Steamboat.html
Although he was building from different plans and only 22ft long, he did droped boiler and steam engine in it.
Maximum propeller in Fred Murphy plans is only 22 inch? There is not more clearance? Can anybody tell me please?

electric tug
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby electric tug » Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:02 am

HI,
you could get a 24" prop under him. It has lots of space. I'm not an N.A. and I have talked to Ron Rogers owner of the steel salty and I have worked as a consultant for "Reliable steam" where the "Salty" plans were bought by Ron.
Yes it could work in my opinion. but I have no idea how it will behave.

Ron(steel salty builder) , in my opinion got lucky, but that boat was designed for steam. as mentioned your best bet is to lay down the boiler.
if you plan to put a VFT in it , then you cannot put it on deck, you must place it on the engine beds below the DWL. the weight of that boiler would cause it to roll. at least on an intuitive level. What size boiler are you planning to use? what's the engine size and rpms?
what make of engine? The FM might be fine , but he will roll, lots of flare, and the waterline plane of the vessel is about 8 ft, so, be careful. its up to you.

electric tug
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:15 am

plans errors/prop/engine sizing

Postby electric tug » Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:04 pm

004.jpg
I have been buying plans from Glen-l for over 32 years. starting with my first hydroplane at 14. A glen-L super titan.

I've owned a set of union jack plans, they got ruined on my houseboat from water. I also owned two sets of the boat I am building now...on this thread. I bought a copy of the coastal cruiser. And various others, such as the sweet 16. never had any problems till now.


I have an issue with the present plans. The problem is that the engine sizing is absolutely wrong for the shaft angle and prop sizes listed. the issue lies with the fact that there is no engine(unless you are from the 1930-40's) in the specified size range that can turn a 24 inch diameter prop. That is, it cannot be done with the called for engine of between 20-50 hp.

there are two mistakes made on the plans from what I can tell...and they are costly ones for me.

1. the "motor" shown in the plans set is under 24 inches high scaling directly form the plans at 1:1 as stated. showing lots of room above the engine in the drawings.

Unfortunately this is absolutely impossible. the smallest diesel out there in the specified hp at present and past has a height of about 27 inches from pan to top. most being around 29-30"
engines in the 50 -65 hp range are at least 29-35 inches high.

case in point. I am looking at a Volvo md 30, 65 hp and a bukh DV 20 , 20 hp, both are 29 inches high.
normally this isn't an issue since the FM tug has about 32 inches of height in the engine rm IF you don't count the cabin sole framing.

2. the second problem will tie into the first but bear with me...

If you want to turn that large a fan(24 inch diameter!) which I do, or at least say 20 inches. there is no solution with the gearing available for a standard gearbox running a diesel of 50 hp, to turn that big of a prop. The RPMS are just too high on modern diesels.
so the issue is that in order to turn this 20-24 inch dia prop specified, which would result in the most efficient use of the vessel and do what it is intended and designed for, you would need a gear reduction in the area of about 4:1. But, there just isn't any such animal. the best I could find was 3:1.

so doing the math using the BMC 1.5 litre I am looking at, along with two others in similar rpms ranges:

3500 rpms/3 = 1167 rpms.

This does not develop the torque required to turn a 20-22" prop. a true torque curve would indeed be in the 750-850 rpm range. that would require 3500rpms/4 = 875 rpms! not bad. bordering on the right shaft speed to turn a large prop.

ok, so lets connect the dots.

There are only two ways I know of to achieve this required torque and rpms.

A. to use a customized reduction gear. These price out at more than the costs of the finished hull. and by far more than the $1500.00 I am spending on my used diesel, which comes with a 2:1, a 2.5:1 or 2.4:1 reverse gear. (there are not any 3:1 gears on any engine I have seen as of yet in the Hp range needed, although I know "slug" off this site used a 3:1 on his Kubota, I dare not ask what he paid.)

todays diesels are high speed low torque for small props which fit into sailboats, sadly 50 hp gearboxes are not made in 4:1 ratio's.

or

B. find an alternative way to gear the prop shaft down.

one way to solve this is using hydraulics, but it is costly, since you need to go to heavy hydraulics and pumps, just to get 33.9 hp from a standard charr-lynn motor. again this is not financially viable. and makes no sense mechanically since you must use a 40 hp and up diesel to make it work without losses.

the other way is mechanically gear it to use a type of speed reducer or belt or polychain system. I have looked into all three of these.

now...In order for these to be used, you have to match the shaft angle. and have a jack shaft which runs the prop.

What handles the thrust of the prop? You need to jury rig some form of bearing system which can handle the incredible torque created, otherwise the shaft would screw itself right through the shaft log. and into the hull...ok its a bit overstated but you get the point.


herein lies the BIG problem.

In order to get a viable system lets say for instance using a polychain drive, you need to raise the engine up off its designed engine beds, in order to create the proper shaft center distance. That is, reasonable if you use a 1.5 inch shaft , and you want to gear that to say 2:1(taking into account there is already a 2:1 gearbox/reduction on my present diesel) you need to make those centers as far apart as possible to put the largest feasible pulleys on the system. on top of that you must take into account the force of the "pull" on the drive shaft from the gearbox. usually this can be handled by roller bearings, which means replacing the standard ball bearings or if possible using a pillow block. The centers and pulley diameters are determined by computer. The smallest input diameter for the shaft @ 2:1 reduction is about 4.75" and about 9"+ for the drive pulley, the lowest center feasible for my application comes in at around 10-14" of center add the lower half of the drive pulley to the center distance to determine the height to raise the engine, and you will find some BIG issues!

ok...bottom line; this means that the engine must raise at least that amount from its present position in the plans upwards 10 14" to allow for the center distance.


HERE is where it gets crazy!

you cant raise it. not without going through the accommodations floor and increasing the shaft angle. too far. which is butchering the design as far as I am concerned.

The plans show the height of the engine to be less than 24 inches in the plans. that means someone did not do their homework in the plans design stage. The prop is actually larger than the engine on the plans.(???) To raise the engine does not seem an issue if you are ok with going through the floor and perhaps adding ballast to accommodate the weight change, above the LCB.

So, that's it. I wrote to Glen-l regarding this matter yesterday. I am asking to have a refund for the plans since I cannot practically make this happen without spending more than should be spent to get the gear reduction necessary to tow my accommodation's barge through nasty weather if necessary. It is the Great lakes after all.

However- I am going to look at one other option. a gear reducer.

This is a cast iron reduction box, that has very close "helical" centers and might allow my engine to be raised only 5+/-" thus not creating an engine protruding through into the accommodations space above. the problem again is costs. they are not cheap at around 1400.00 U.S. plus 550.00 for the coupler. ok, its more than my engine. which kind of irks me somewhat.
This adds enough extra "save" time to put my project back a full year since I would need to fork that out in the spring.
\
so there you have it. a small mistake in the plans which turns out to be a big one for me, and had I have seen that error sooner\(not sure how I could have?) it might possibly not cost me big bucks.
I would probably prefer to restart a different steel boat -one that does not need a large reduction. I.e. a Union Jack perhaps.
But I will await to hear back from Gayle- I'll keep you posted...

cheers
Doug
004.jpg
002.jpg
005.jpg

User avatar
aero_dan
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: Cassville, Missouri (SW MO)

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby aero_dan » Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:10 pm

Hey Doug,
If you keep the shaft in line as designed, do you have 12" or less that you can push the engine forward? If so, I have seen some inexpensive planatary reducers that might work. Last time I price one, they were around $600. They are rated for 200-500 HP. One that comes to mind quickly you can get from most driveline shops. If you are not familiar with them, they are set up to be one of 3 ways. Over-n-under, over-n-direct, and under-n-direct. I was looking at one for a mini pickup that was around 8" without the long yokes. I saw one that was a fixed unit that was actually under 6". If you got the driveline shop to order short profile yokes, you would have it in less than a foot for sure. And these can be easily fitted with thrust bearings. Then there is my personal favorite. There is a company, forgot the name right now, that used the planatary overdrive out of older Ford and Studebaker 3 speed (T-86) trannys, in their own box. That was rated at 250 HP, and if you inverted it, would be perfect for what you were wanting. And best of all, they were, ... if memory serves, $249. I can research it if you wanted. Don't give up yet. And yes, there are a couple hickups in the tugs. But they are worth finding a work-around. How many folks do you know that can aford to build a li'l monster like the FM and have the surveyor hand you a paper valuing it at thousands more than you spent? I had similar issues with the Goliath. I found my answers with some hunting and believe it or not, a bit of prayer. I think the trick is to try to keep an open mind. I had to think outside the proverbial marine box. Call if you want to talk.
Dan
Better, faster, cheaper. Only ever found 2 of the 3! (But still lookin.)
So many boats, ...so little time.

User avatar
aero_dan
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: Cassville, Missouri (SW MO)

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby aero_dan » Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:32 pm

Found these really quick. Hope these will help, in order of viability...

http://www.hardlinecrawlers.com/forums/ ... #msg418907

http://www.high-impact.net/transmission ... s.htm#Gear Splitters

http://www.gearvendors.com/

http://www.finaldrives.eu/MiniDrives.htm

http://www.auburngear.com/powerwheel/

I like the "strongbox" myself. And the price is tolerable. I'll keep looking for the small planitary I really liked...
Dan
Better, faster, cheaper. Only ever found 2 of the 3! (But still lookin.)
So many boats, ...so little time.

electric tug
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby electric tug » Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:44 am

Hey Dan,
I really do appreciate your input and taking the time to help out.

I promise to call you. I'll warn you that I have never been the most social person in the world, so calling someone I don't know well is a little out of my comfort zone, but You have been helpful. I might call at night.

the other thing is its a LD call which could get expensive. but I am sure we would have a good conversation about our dreams.

To be honest I am the type of person that doesn't get into complications. What I mean by that is- If something starts to get overly complicated or not conventionally easy to do, I usually can quite easily turn on a dime.

I have this boat that might be good to build, see enclosed, and also I might be just easily persuaded to do a Union Jack. I need a seaworthy vessel that I can go on the Great Lakes with.

These are the most treacherous waters in the world.

My original plan was to have two boats- one to live on and one to cruise on. The FM is not an expensive build. It would be a hull, a bed, a camp cook stove, a small shower, and a berth. everything else would be bare, and it would be built as a simple towboat. no expensive items. I am not rich. in fact I am amazed I am able to do this. but I don't spend my money on anything else. by all accounts I should not be able to build this. but because I sacrifice on things like clothing, food, health clubs, and many other things others normally do, I am able to afford it. But barely. And when it is all over(if it ever is) then I will lose my obsession and go back to normality whatever that is.

I need to rethink my priorities. This new design is fast to build, easy, and I'd be on the water much sooner, and I don't need to reduce the gearing. thus the KISS principle in action. but I sacrifice some sea keeping, although The boat theoretically could be very seaworthy it is basically a barge with a rockered bottom, and I would have to wait and see if the sea trials prove it to be seaworthy enough to venture a crossing from South Baymouth to Tobermory ont but it should be able to do it on a relatively calm day. Even the FM I wouldn't take out there in a good breeze, since these would be high cresting 5-8 ft. waves.
I won't lose any money by starting over so this is just easier.

It breaks my heart, but Its probably for the best. starting over costs = about 300.00
fixing gearing problems = $1500.00+ I will look into your postings tho.

but its just seems simpler to start.

rw.jpg

User avatar
aero_dan
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: Cassville, Missouri (SW MO)

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby aero_dan » Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:55 pm

No worries mate!
If you want to "unload" your FM parts, I would consider that too. My wife says I sometimes "help too much" :roll: :lol: But I was thinking after starting the Goliath, to consider building the FM in a stretched version next. Selling me your frames, sternpost, and stem if you have them, would get me there 2 weeks earlier (after the goliath is done of course). And the engine thing is not a concern if my current "mystical" drive system works out. 8) (You know, a flux capacitor and a Mr. Fusion mini reactor doesn't take up as much room... :lol: :lol: PM me (or dhennis@centurytel.net) if you want to sell out, I would take the plans too, (if that is acceptable to Glen-L) as I do not have those yet either. Wife asked me (with a smile :D ) "do you think he will take payments? You are spending almost everything on the Goliath right now." :shock: :mrgreen:
Cheers Mate,
Dan
Better, faster, cheaper. Only ever found 2 of the 3! (But still lookin.)
So many boats, ...so little time.

electric tug
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Building a Steel, Fred Murphy!

Postby electric tug » Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:30 pm

Dan if you want, I am going to take the night to think about it and tomorrow I'll either nix it or not. I want to see what Gayle says. Perhaps Gayle will understand my problem...perhaps not. If so, then I could buy a set of Union Jack plans.

Basically if I sell out, you can have the frames for the price of scrap since it would not be worth it to have them shipped. You would be done by the time they got there...(?) They would be yours for the taking....25 cents CDN per lb, works out to about 150.00 bucks or so CDN I'm guessing.

However, if you want a kit..i.e.. all the steel, all the frames, the strong back , lifting gear, welder, tools, and even massive components for a gantry, ill deduct the costs of shipping, and you could have it for what I paid minus shipping to you? lets say 3k CDN but you pay shipping costs? sure pay me when you can..no probs. otherwise most of that steel would seriously be wasted by heading to the scrapyard...ouch!

I'd have to sell my tools(hopefully). The saddest part is that it would be the 2nd time I would have had to give up on the FM. That's what hurts.

anyway
its a thought...
Ill know more tomorrow .I would be very sad to have to give it up. I think I need a flux capacitor or maybe a fusion reactor that would be better.

todays morale level indicator: LOW


Return to “Metal”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests