Canopus and Sculptor

[ditchcrawler]

You don't have to use them if they're fitted, but it's a very nice feature to have up your sleeve

I have one and I agree, but you don't half look a dick when you plan to use it for a manoeuvre and it doesn't work for some reason.

[Guest]

I have one and I agree, but you don't half look a dick when you plan to use it for a manoeuvre and it doesn't work for some reason.

 

I've got that t-shirt already! My fault though, couldn't deactivate the ruddy standby system whilst wearing gloves... but couldn't remove said gloves with teeth 'cos the cuffs where drawn in tight. Discovered shortly afterwards that the 26" four blade does at least plough some neat furrows...

Edited December 28, 2016 by dpaws

[JohnO]

Just wondering, does the thruster system on Canopus as “excellent" as it is, meet the installation guidelines,
The weight of Canopus you quote seems excessive here is interesting method to calculate.

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=18541&p=298506

 

I have travelled up the dreaded Ashby on a loaded pair with steerers who effortlessly drove the channel. When we arrived, there was a lot of talk in the beer tent of bottom too close to the top, BW should be dredging more, tales of excursions into the bushes. None of these boats had a significant load on nor were towing, that was the point i realised i had a lot more to learn on the craft of piloting. Go and get Canopus with some water underneath “her/him/it” and see what you got best case scenario. Dragging ya ass has quite a negative effect.

 

edit: add an o and sort the font.

Edited December 29, 2016 by JohnO

[roland elsdon]

She positively gallops forward like a puppy stung by a wasp and refuses to stop racing around in a headless manner in just about the same way!

 

Dave Harris got it right then for a shortened grand Union. Cargo boats were designed to go fast forward. Stopping was a different matter largely irrelevant if you stop quickly only to get slapped up backside by a dumb boat carrying a load of aggregates. Few cries of slow down in working days I guess, but then boats not full of glass TVs and ornaments

By the way I saw Canopus at braunston last year fabulous enjoy.

[mark99]

The early Motor Ricky's had a thick post just in front of rudder adopted from steam boats. I think by the time Walkers got a large order for GU boats they had dropped the post but its hard to tell from the GU Ricky drawing I have.

[Guest]

Thanks Guys - and for the best wishes Ronald - she is a pretty girl!

 

Not sure re the thruster, haven't been up close so can't calculate and compare - but whatever the net power output it seems very well balanced against the mass of the hull; it's use very quickly becomes intuitive, my longest blast was around 8 seconds and most likely to have been to evade an impending hawthorne bush..

 

I could hold position in the centre of a Braunston wide lock whilst the paddles were opened, so you can be delicate with her too. I'm sure I'm not meant to slip the cones on the Blackstone gearbox, but doing so in conjunction with the thruster offers great amusement whilst waiting for the levels to equalise... and of course locks simply feel slower in the winter when it's a tad past chilly on the stern.

 

Displacement - I've been chewing on this. 3D CAD is easy, one click, but without the hull's block efficient we can only best guess. My 62' curvy hull is superfine, displacement at 750mm draft is 18 tonnes. For 'Pus she's both longer at 65' and deeper. The Op manual says just under 20 tonnes at 2'6 draft. I don't know the lay tonnes per inch for a 65 footer, and neither do I know the exact draft, other than the natural water level when static is 1cm inside the weed hatch through the uxter plate, hope that makes sense.

 

If you estimate 0.8 tonnes per inch, and a real draft of 2'9", then 22.4 tonnes wouldn't be far off - does that sound reasonable to the "old" hands?

Edited December 29, 2016 by dpaws

[Guest]

The image of Sculptor as a Fireboat was one I had scanned and attributed correctly to Ron Shettle

 

I am sorry I know it is not in the spirit of Peace and Goodwill to all men on this day of all days to ask this but they are the intellectual property right of someone else. A link to the Sculptor blog or perhaps a comment on that blog asking for permission may have been more appropriate.

 

Kathryn... I'm now very curious. The same image you have attributed to Ron Shettle is apparently under the copyright of

 

"Image Copyright © London Fire Brigade / Mary Evans Picture Library"

 

taken from this webpage here:

 

http://lfb.mediastorehouse.com/-product/7637927/nfs-london-region-narrow-boat-fitted-with-fire-pumps-photo-prints.html?pid=80945

 

May I have my warning point rescinded or will you be joining me?

Edited December 29, 2016 by dpaws

[Tonka]

Thanks Guys - and for the best wishes Ronald - she is a pretty girl!

 

Not sure re the thruster, haven't been up close so can't calculate and compare - but whatever the net power output it seems very well balanced against the mass of the hull; it's use very quickly becomes intuitive, my longest blast was around 8 seconds and most likely to have been to evade an impending hawthorne bush..

 

I could hold position in the centre of a Braunston wide lock whilst the paddles were opened, so you can be delicate with her too. I'm sure I'm not meant to slip the cones on the Blackstone gearbox, but doing so in conjunction with the thruster offers great amusement whilst waiting for the levels to equalise... and of course locks simply feel slower in the winter when it's a tad past chilly on the stern.

 

Displacement - I've been chewing on this. 3D CAD is easy, one click, but without the hull's block efficient we can only best guess. My 62' curvy hull is superfine, displacement at 750mm draft is 18 tonnes. For 'Pus she's both longer at 65' and deeper. The Op manual says just under 20 tonnes at 2'6 draft. I don't know the lay tonnes per inch for a 65 footer, and neither do I know the exact draft, other than the natural water level when static is 1cm inside the weed hatch through the uxter plate, hope that makes sense.

 

If you estimate 0.8 tonnes per inch, and a real draft of 2'9", then 22.4 tonnes wouldn't be far off - does that sound reasonable to the "old" hands?

What you wrote above proves nothing any boat will stay in the middle of a lock if you open the paddles evenly

[Guest]

What you wrote above proves nothing any boat will stay in the middle of a lock if you open the paddles evenly

 

I look forward to your demonstration with only two on board, as we were in effect

Edited December 29, 2016 by dpaws

[IanM]

On Braunston locks if you have the boat against the wall and open the paddle fully on the side you're on the boat will stay there.

 

Buckby locks however, forget it

Edited December 29, 2016 by IanM

[GUMPY]

On Braunston locks if you have the boat against the wall and open the paddle fully on the side you're on the boat will stay there.

 

Buckby locks however, forget it

Recently I have broken away from the traditional ground paddle on the same side as the boat routine for GU locks.

As the boat is only 60ft we sit furthur back in the lock and, except in very deep locks like Denham, start with the gate paddle opposite side to the boat, this directs the water down the opposite lock wall and holds the boat in much the same way as the ground paddle on the same side as the boat which is opened next.

Its a big departure from Parglena days when it was all paddles in any order as quick as you like.

Edited December 29, 2016 by Loddon

[Guest]

Recently I have broken away from the traditional ground paddle on the same side as the boat routine for GU locks.

As the boat is only 60ft we sit furthur back in the lock and, except in very deep locks like Denham, start with the gate paddle opposite side to the boat, this directs the water down the opposite lock wall and holds the boat in much the same way as the ground paddle on the same side as the boat which is opened next.

Its a big departure from Parglena days when it was all paddles in any order as quick as you like.

 

Yes, I'd heard and tried similar, first nearside paddle 50% then far side paddle100% and after the gates if it got boring - but like you, I prefer to sit back so that could be the reason I wasn't convinced by the above after a couple of attempts.

 

Truth be known I also wanted to preserve the paint, and so found that sitting central to all kept me busy enough - but it's quite satisfying at the same time. I know, simple things please simple minds...

[Leo No2]

Kathryn... I'm now very curious. The same image you have attributed to Ron Shettle is apparently under the copyright of

 

"Image Copyright © London Fire Brigade / Mary Evans Picture Library"[/size]

 

taken from this webpage here: [/size]

 

http://lfb.mediastorehouse.com/-product/7637927/nfs-london-region-narrow-boat-fitted-with-fire-pumps-photo-prints.html?pid=80945

 

May I have my warning point rescinded or will you be joining me?

Well - in Floating Fire Engines it is attributed to Ron Shettle. I attributed it to Ron Shettle and Cath Turpin because Cath let me have a copy - I just don't understand where the Mary Evans Picture Library comes from. May be it is wrongly attributed in Floating Fire Engines? Nil points all round I think!

 

ETA - if you go to the Mary Evans Photo Library the images in question are attributed to Mary Evans and the London Fire Brigade (from where I understand the image in Floating Fire Engines came from). The images visible on http://www.maryevans.com are all watermarked with MaryEvans.com so I can only assume (assume makes an ass out of u and me) that the image on Sculptor's website didn't come via MaryEvans.com as there is no watermark present. All very confusing. I wonder if Mary Evans (died 2010) may have purchased the LFB collection sometime between 2005 (when Floating Fire Engines was published) and her death?

Edited December 29, 2016 by Leo No2

[Guest]

I just don't understand where the Mary Evans Picture Library comes from. May be it is wrongly attributed in Floating Fire Engines? Nil points all round I think!

 

No, I can't quite work it out either. I would assume that Mary Evans has bought the rights somehow. Either that or emptied the web's caches and assumed copyright until challenged, at which time it disowns and subsequently deletes the image from it's collection? I have to admit that the latter would be a more efficient process!

[GUMPY]

 

Yes, I'd heard and tried similar, first nearside paddle 50% then far side paddle100% and after the gates if it got boring - but like you, I prefer to sit back so that could be the reason I wasn't convinced by the above after a couple of attempts.

 

Truth be known I also wanted to preserve the paint, and so found that sitting central to all kept me busy enough - but it's quite satisfying at the same time. I know, simple things please simple minds...

Read again I start with the offside GATE paddle.

The order you describe is bound to bounce the boat about, you really do like making it hard for yourself..........

[Guest]

Ahhh.... I was told that the initial nearside flow would bounce off the far-side wall and then pin the centre of the hull nearside... Once this flow was dominant the far side paddle's wash would be deflected further aft along my hull. It made sense in my head as he spoke and I wrote it down, so I didn't mix it up.

 

Despite that of course, the experience was exactly as you described!

Edited December 29, 2016 by dpaws

[matty40s]

Read again I start with the offside GATE paddle.

The order you describe is bound to bounce the boat about, you really do like making it hard for yourself..........

I do nearside ground and office gate paddle quickly, then do the offside ground.

This works best when the gate paddles are not fitted with patent rubbish collectors (baffles)

[alan_fincher]

On Braunston locks if you have the boat against the wall and open the paddle fully on the side you're on the boat will stay there.

 

Buckby locks however, forget it

 

This absolutely doesn't work with Flamingo.

 

It may well work with a bow high unloaded motor, but Flamingo is deep enough at the front end that it gets flushed to the other side.

 

Note also that our last passages through Braunston have seen many of the pounds seriously short of water, the worst to the extent we have been rubbing on cills as the back end passes over. Obviously if the lower pound at a lock is well down, then when first opened the ground paddles are significantly closer to the surface of the water, and it becomes more likely that they are discharging against he side of the boat, rather than the flow of water mostly going under it.

[GUMPY]

 

This absolutely doesn't work with Flamingo.

 

It may well work with a bow high unloaded motor, but Flamingo is deep enough at the front end that it gets flushed to the other side.

 

Note also that our last passages through Braunston have seen many of the pounds seriously short of water, the worst to the extent we have been rubbing on cills as the back end passes over. Obviously if the lower pound at a lock is well down, then when first opened the ground paddles are significantly closer to the surface of the water, and it becomes more likely that they are discharging against he side of the boat, rather than the flow of water mostly going under it.

Exactly the reason I start with the opposite GATE paddle......

Let the flow build then do boat side ground paddle.

It works in my parrallel universe.

[mark99]

We use opposite gate paddle too. Works a treat. 62 footer.

[Derek R.]

The Northern GU gear works as intended, better than the Southern. Pull the nearside when filling and she'll stay put until near full. Southern locks are finicky. Had a fright going up Wigan once. Someone cracked a gate paddle - only a bit - and a jet of water shot out at 45° in an upward curving arc that came straight down into our well deck - and it would NOT go down. We took on about 25-30 gallons in a very short space of time!

[Guest]

Right, back to 'Pus. A contribution from a learned friend (retired lecturer in Aeronautical Engineering at Imperial College) - I'm interested too in your opinion Jan.

 

A mod applicable to all with a skeg post to improve handling. This should also make the rudder less sensitive to the ill effects of debris around the prop.

 

 

Referring to the Sillette marine propulsion catalogue (http://www.sillette.co.uk/price_pdf_files/eliche_radice_propellers.pdf)

 

he's incline towards H=.311 and E12 (3 blade),

 

 

suggesting that with this configuration a reasonable glide steering could be preserved even with a 26" prop.

 

One thing he did point out is the free wheeling effect of the prop against the friction from the stern gland. Those set-ups whose prop still rotates when in neutral will have a better glide steer than boats like mine where the prop-shaft stops (I had the floor boards up to up to verify this) and thus significantly restricts useful flow aft. In our case the large disk area means all water that does make it through would be quite disturbed, so even less useful for the steering surface.

 

The bulbous addition blocks the flow between the post and the leading edge which itself will have strange lift/drag characteristics as at small deflections it forms a slot, just like on a wing leading edge to increase lift. In ignorance the post has a rectangular leading edge, not profiled as would maybe be the intention if this was the desired effect.

 

The lift profile of the rudder is increased with this bulbous part, which it shares with Schilling rudder designs.

 

I'm very tempted to keep the plate rudder blade as is, but sandwich it between (so it's bolted in the centre of) two CNC machined blocks of Dryslide with a combined Schilling profile when assembled.

 

 

 

The chord ratio of the profile (ie how fat it is and thus how powerful it is) can be adjusted and refined by removing and re-machining the profile on a suck-and-see basis until a good handling balance is felt at the tiller.

 

The blunt and widened trailing edge of the Schilling profile is designed to give some good anti-twitchy characteristics; the theoretically ideal trailing edge is actually concave.

 

Food for thought!

 

Incidentally very interesting to observe the variance in locking methods, and not as I'd expected. Would be fun to have a competition series every year with events throughout the UK for vintage boats fitted with vintage engine and controls and judged over a handling course which would include timed crewed and single handed locking, maybe a timed course between markers for closet to 4mph exactly... Points for precision, technique, style, crew synergy, brass shininess and smoke rings etc...

 

I've got mi pennies on the entry by Mr Fuller & family... have I a good chance?

Edited December 30, 2016 by dpaws

[Guest]

I helped the original owners pick the boat up from Norton Canes where the hull was taken for grit blasting following launch and steered it round most of the Wyrley & Essington/Daw End Branch/Rushall Canal/Tame Valley and apart from smacking the coping coming off the Rushall Canal (it picked up a bladefull so didn't hold back, that's my excuse) don't recall thinking "this handles really badly, I'd rather be on the back of a proper one"*. I steered it on a few subsequent occasions - surprised the owners by how quickly it went round the bends with the Frodingham piles near Mancetter - and again, wouldn't say it handled badly. Quite. It went like train from my memory of it.

 

This thread is a bit cryptic but I gather from one comment it now has a four bat blade on it. This was not the case when first launched:

 

 

 

*which I would, obviously

 

 

 

This was the first prop fitted, much fatter blades than recommended above. I'm guessing here, but maybe handling issues with this one prompted a swap to an Axiom. Handling (steering & glide) was then improved ( note thinner blades on the Axiom) but found to be completely ineffective in reverse (lack of revs via the speedwheel?) and introduced other issues re debris etc. Assuming more blade area required for crash stop performance, the previous owner then went for a 26" four blade (against advice) and inadvertently created the latest issues that I encountered.

 

A lack of stopping power seems to be a constant. So was the driver, so revs could be a constant issue, carried forward to my own "helmsmanship" but my hunch is the 1:3 (deadwood/prop/rudder leading edge) spacing instead of the recommended 3:1 is asserting influence.

 

 

For the prop at least this is closer to the ideal, new build "Oberon", courtesy of Simon Wain (Brinklow Boats).

 

http://www.brinklowboatservices.com/new-builds/small-northwich-remake-oberon/

Edited December 29, 2016 by dpaws

[Guest]

One thing I had already noted was the difference between davidg's "in primer" photo, and the one in the RBS sales brochure.

 

 

 

To me, the boat looks far more ballasted at the front in the form it was offered for sale, than it was when the first picture was taken, (not surprising, I guess, as probably not fully fitted out then).

 

However, I would suggest that many of the modern boats that are to some extent working boat copies, sit in the water more like the first photo than the second - i.e. significantly "nose end high".

 

Of course, in general getting it more level is no bad thing, but it does then mean the resulting boat will be at a significant draught throughout its entire length, and will obviously be both a lot heavier, and generally far more affected by getting out of channel.

 

Our converted working boat, whilst still very "nose high" sits massively lower in the water at the front than the converted equivalent. I had not fully appreciated what a huge difference this would make. Here our "Town class" boat lies on the outside of two unconverted "Towns". I have also spent a couple of days steering "Chertsey", moored against the towpath in that picture. Both have engines and gearboxes with similar powers and reduction ratios. There is absolutely no comparison between the two, and if I try using techniques I would easily have got away with on "Chertsey", I would be, (and on occasions have been!), in severe trouble with "Flamingo"

 

 

 

Thank you Alan, Some very good points there that I'd scanned and missed the first time round. I can see that I'm asking for trouble with the bow so low.

 

Next time she's in the yard we'll take out some ballast forward to trim her more as seen in the first photo, training trim!

 

I'm guessing the extra weight that's lowered the bow is from the retro fitted bow thruster and associated battery bank; I'm guessing that no equivalent weight of ballast was removed as part of it's installation.

 

Noted also that the water tank was refitted after initial problems to a new design and probably with a different capacity.

[GUMPY]

In my parallel world the flatter a boat is the better it handles.

If you look at loaded boats on the continent they are loaded to be bow down for a very goid reason.

I have always ballasted my boats to be as flat as I can, even the deep, 2ft9, drafted ones.