Glen-L.com

I have the Cracker Box plans and had a crazy Idea this weekend for a scaled down version with a Yamaha powered jet. Where some people have scaled the Squirt up to 12 feet to hold a jet set-up, I was thinking of doing the same thing by scaling the Cracker Box down from 15' to 12'. I would switch the motor to the rear and move the cockpit forward.

Now I need feedback. Will this work????

Let me know.

Thanks

David

If you're going to do that look at the Tiny Might plans.

_________________
As Conan the Barbarian says, " It's not how hard you can hit, it's how hard you can get hit and remain standing".

I already have the Cracker Box plans and I would need to modify whatever plans I got anyway for the jet system.

I was thinking about shrinking everything down 20%.

This would be a father son project.

David

Why shorten it? I suspect the cost difference to build would be negligible. Just wondering is all.

Nova ss wrote: Why shorten it?

I guess I thought it would be kinda cool looking. I'm not only looking at shortening it, but also decreasing the beam as well. I'm basically going to scale everything down. Also, I Just finished a Monaco and don't want to tackle another big boat right now and the Jet ski motor I have would be too small for a 15 foot boat. I would be looking at reducing the hull weight from 400# to somewhere around 275#.

I'm just playing around with the idea right now. My 10 year old son is fueling the fire and he's ready to go but I'm not so sure. We'll see.

David

I know you said you had the plans for the cracker already but what about taking a look at a dyno Jet. Its designed for a jet ski motor already and has the layout your talking about.

You are probably right Nova, In the end the cost of the drawings is really nothing.

David

I think the Tiny Mite would be the way to go....it has the Barrelback look you want,everything fits to scale without guess/modifying beam,height,sheet planking fit etc.

A set of plans/patterns would be far cheaper than messing up on expensive wood plus lots of wasted labor

Only thing I think would be a consideration ,is the flat bottoms on these boats....jets kinda like vee bottoms to keep the pump buried.

But others have had success with flat bottom jets IE Squirts and TNT's

The Dyno Jet has the bottom and is designed for a jet,but the hull is a more modern design,not the classic design I assume you are looking for.

_________________
Boat building can best be defined as an endless series of
tragedies obscured by the occasional miracle, followed by a good bottle of beer.

Don't Dream Your Life, Live Your Dream

That's right Pirate, the classic look is what I want, but this is going to be my son's project and he already said how we could paint it

I'll try and convince him the classic look is the way to go.

If I did go the Cracker Box way, I would increase the dead rise a little to get the jet deeper in the water.

I was searching around the forum looking for anybody who put a jet in a CB and found this guy: web letter 86 Rick Heaney. Of course his boat looks great but he did way more than I want to bite off right now. I think he even stretched it a bit.

David

if you graft part of the bottom from the Jet Ski into the bottom of the boat your intending to mod that would likely create a small V at the rear of the hull. I believe a few builders have done it this way. The Problem with the Tiny might and Cracker would be weight distribution if you move the seating forward enough to accomidate the jet drive behind the seating (if I'm understanding your vision correctly)

I think I see what you are saying Nova, however, my logic goes something like this...If the Cracker had a small block chevy that weighed around 800# sitting in the middle and you had 2 grown men riding say 225# each you would have 450# at the rear. The weight difference would be +/- 350#.

If you moved the cockpit forward now you would have 450# at midway and a much lighter motor in the rear say around 200# making the weight difference +/-250#. When you factor in the reduced size in the boat the weight difference is basically the same.

If I did the jet system I more than likely would graft the ski into the boat.

David

Lewis,

It will work and it will be awesome! The shorter the drivetrain the better (I'm partial to SeaDoo) and the grafting is easy. I would leave as much vee from the Ski below the hull as possible - I wish I would have on my Squirt.

I look forward to your updates.

Kevin

_________________
"I'm not trying to get it perfect. I'm trying to get it finished!"
Squirt Build: http://www.tubbytug.com/SquirtHome.html

If you were to graft the pump cavity of the jet ski you are pulling the motor from you could search the jet ski forums for a toploader intake grate. I use them on my stand ups to help feed water in to the pump and keep it hooked. I'm kicking the idea around of building the tiniy might with a jet ski engine and pump caqvity grafeted in to it.

just use a yamaha pump from a wave runner 3 it has an intake that is made of aluminum i have used it in 3 boats that i have built just my 2c will

It is way simple to put a slight V into the frames and blending into the grafted hull. No mater how sharp of a turn I would put my boat into it would never suck any air....Besides their are no flat bottom jet skis so that's why I modified mine...

If I had it to do over again I would go with the Dyno Jet , quicker build and lighter..

_________________
THE FRAUD WILL NOT GO AWAY..9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

http://s147.photobucket.com/albums/r302 ... rd_photos/