16' Fisherman Taxi

[Kevin Turner]

I've been looking at building a 16' fisherman taxi, using a no-name 70 HP 2 stroke inboard.

The power plant comes in under 200 lbs and would allow a flat rear casting deck.

How 'bout some questions & feedback from fellow FMers?

With permission, I would like to post a link to the engine builders web site. What say yee mods?

[MSRiverdog]

You know I love the idea.

That could be a wanderer's delight, affordable, easy to launch in odd places, moveable by 1 person should you get it hung up (it could happen) and would be pretty quick. Let me be the first to be a field tester.

[Royce Aardahl]

I volunteer to be the 2nd tester! MSR email me at [email protected] thanks

[Ralph Wiggum]

I'd like to know what a "fisherman taxi" is.

[Kevin Turner]

lol, I dunno either. I a buddy of mine came up with the name...

[Royce Aardahl]

it's a small ship that takes eyeguy to bass areas

[jet man]

I had a conversation with a guy down the river this summer and this was exactly what we talked about. We discussed using a 70 to 100 hp jet ski motor to make an "affordable" jet boat. As the common man would say; "you are either on something or on to something me boy". You the man to do it. lol

[MSRiverdog]

Times right for it KT, gas prices, useable money, and you know the right way to do it.

But we gotta have a different name for it. How about the Bubba Boat.

[Ice9]

I assume that power plant would be a jet and the hull would be flat, jon-boat style. I guess for me the key problem is get-up and draw. I've been involved in the development of several hardbottom jets and jet rafts in big east coast rivers with lots of bedrock ledges and big chute-style rapids, where miscalculation has a high price. The Mississippi and St. Croix, with freestone boulders and predictable contours, is a lot easier to run a jet in, so a boat that is slower on the lift isn't as much of a problem, and you rarely have to contend with pushing up water that is coming down at 8, 10, 12 knots. The boats I know always started out light--we'd generally fish with oars, then run up or down with the powerplant--but wound up adding more and more weight with added horsepower and more focused lifting bodies to get a smaller footprint on the water. For example, the Assault Sled (belongs to John Hayes) began with a 25/20 and simple unreinforced tubes with a basic frame and cockpit; now it runs on the 80 and the tubes are skegged up and the frame is beefed up and it is definitely not a light boat anymore. Though it runs on a heavy dew and in fact I've twice been aboard when it ran on--and over-- wet rock.

That means I'd welcome a smaller, lighter jet that got up quick and maneuvered well even if the speed at plane was lower. What will the specs (estimated) be?

ice

[Kevin Turner]

Good post Ice9.

2si has little info available regarding static thrust. The Canucks have played with this a little, other than that, I have zero perf stats.

The hull I hope to test this weekend, is an OB Jet hull we already had. Here are the hull specs:

18' LOA / 60" bottom / 18" delta pad / 2" neutral chines / 12 degree deadrise / Hull weight @ 500 lbs

My goal is a 16' LOA / 66" bottom / 16" delta / 4" reverse chines / 6 degree deadrise / Hull weight NA yet

If the power unit has the static thrust to plane the 60" 12 degree, it should work on 66" 6 degree. I may need to narrow the delta pad and flatten out the chines(for pump loading).

I want a craft that will stay on plane at low speeds, but also move people & gear near 30 MPH. Also, I'm hoping the the power unit will have enough static thrust to move a the hull with 1/2" of UMHW.

[canvas1]

I Wont mine W/ A Honda Aqutrax Turbo Engine

another great boat From MR. Turner? YA Can Bet ON IT !

[Dennis Steele]

Kevin,

Go ahead and post the power plant link.

If theres any heat. I'll take it.

Being kind of a boat junkie, you've got my curiosity up.

[Papa Grump]

A fisherman's taxi. Kind of got my attention on this one.

[Kevin Turner]

Thanx Dennis.

www.2si.com

[Keith_MN]

Kevin,

The one thing that jumps right out at me is the fact that the engine would allow for a flat casting deck in the rear of the boat.

As an individual who can trip over his own shoestrings the flat casting deck would be a HUGE plus.

And if this "taxi" is relatively affordable, I myself would be interested in it just to have a boat for Canada where I don't have to worry about when I'm going to lose my lower unit to a submerged rock reef.

[Corey Bechtold]

I you are looking to make a new style boat, consider us "less fortunate" in the wallet folks. If the rig is affordable and can tread some skinny water, than you will defiantely have something a poor guy like me could afford. I'd be interested!

Keep us informed,

Corey Bechtold

[Ice9]

Casting deck fore and aft--is that what you said, a low profile engine? A huge plus for flyrodders, of which I am a one of.

What's the hull gauge, or did you say? and how does the steering gear work? If it really is lightweight high capacity and 30 mph I might have a customer or two for you back east. Not to mention my own self. That's a boat would make a stir on Minnetonka when I go out for a little evening walleye jaunt. On second thought, nothing makes a stir on Tonka.

I just like riding in those monsters, up high out front like a hood ornament watching the rocks fly by. Comes from years and years of hacking my way downriver with nothing but a pair of 10' Carlisles.

Do you run the RP's anywhere with class III water? Not that it matters...I can tell from that profile that they'd eat that stuff up, I just like talking about it.

ice

[alvinmack5]

Quote:

---

Do you run the RP's anywhere with class III water?

---

Ice,

Last weekend I took mine up a little feeder river through a few areas in Central, WI. I motored through a few areas in which I would consider Class II and it was absolute cake. I can't imagine Class III would be very difficult for a RP as long as the boater does a good job at reading the river.

[smallie_hawgin]

Alvin according to the classification system....

Class I: Very small rapids with low waves, slow current, no obstructions.

Class II: Fairly frequent rapids of medium difficulty, few or no obstructions.

Class III: Difficult, large, irregular waves up to four feet, numerous rapids. The course requires some maneuvering of the raft.

Class IV: Very difficult, long, extended rapids that require careful maneuvering of the raft. Powerful irregular waves and dangerous rocks are common. The course is hard to determine and scouting is necessary.

Class V: Long and violent rapids. Large waves that are unavoidable and irregular. Extremely difficult and complex course. Scouting is essential.

Class VI: Maximum difficulty. Nearly impossible and extremely dangerous. Class V carried to the limit of navigability. Involves risk of life.

Four feet waves??? I have driven some pretty hairy water in mine and willing to try some fairly crazy stuff (just ask HT???? ) And I don't know if we even have anything around here that clkassifies as class III... I don't know though. Race ya?

[alvinmack5]

Wow, I didnt realize their was that much of a jump between class 2 and class 3. All I know is if you want an adventure go launch your boat on the Croix in Grantsburg, WI. Then shoot up about 2 miles where the Kettle River dumps into the Croix. I haven't been there *yet*. But from what I've read on the MN DNR website that their are a few stretches where they list it as class III in higher water. Needless to say it's on my list of things to do this Spring.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/canoeing/kettleriver/index.html

Here is a good pic of the Kettle near Banning State Park. Your classification of Class III said up to 4 feet. I would say a few in this pic sure look close to 4. Definatly looks like class III material to me. Btw, the Kettle has excellent smallie fishing too! How about the next smallie magnet on the Kettle

[alvinmack5]

Ok SH, I just did a google image search of Class III rapids. I'm sticking with my original comment. No problem for a RP, you just might get a little wet is all

[jh/wisc]

Kevin: How did you decide on 16'?

John

[Ice9]

Water can be classed for a variety of reasons. If the flow isn't obstructed (as that Kettle River shot is) then you'd have to have big haystacks or standing waves--though 4' seems high to me-- to qualify for III. IV would require a real keeping wave or hydraulic or, more usual, a long series of standing waves. If you have to maneuver the boat in the rapid due to flows or obstructions, even rapids of moderate fall can be IIIs. For me, for jet maneuvering, a fairly big sequence of waves or humps is preferable to a big boulder right in the throat of the flow. I'm used to running some big IIIs that are really pretty easy and some technical II's that are quite a bit more dangerous and challenging and which change a lot with minor fluctuations in river level.

Would you jet jockeys agree that going down a rapid is hairier than going up? I for one put hotrodding down big drops as highest on the pucker factor chart for the whole operation. And the accidents I've seen or heard of in whitewater have almost all been while going downhill.

ice

[smallie_hawgin]

Ice,

Heck yeah, the few times I have hit at all, have been going downstream. A lot less time to make decisions. Planing speed relative to obstructions is a heck of a lot faster. Going up stream the faster the current is, the easier it is to just slow it down.

Alvin, I wasn't challenging your idea I was just offering the classification system as I found it on some Kayaking web site... Either way, I know it is a heck of a rush running rapids either direction. You could just do an HT.... Full throttle ... j/k, HT

Seriously though, if this taxi design has anywhere near the planing capacity and maneuverability that the current RPs have it should be golden. It still takes a decent driver to get through the hairy stuff regardless of the boat. Good discussion..

[Kevin Turner]

Ice, The hull we're testing has a .190 rear section / .125 bow section, but, my head is swimming with different bottom structure, temper, & thickness ideas.

JH, I'm not solid on the hull length. If I build a sled nose, 16' LOA (length over all) & 66" bottom width will be quite roomy. I'm looking for a craft that drifts shallow. The 16' sled will have a big static foot print; good for drifting, but lots of drag till planed.

[alvinmack5]

SH,

I know you were funnin'. I do agree with both of you though. I get much much more nervous going downstream than up. Last weekend I bounced a rock pretty good heading down. They are so easy to see going up stream, but in this case their was quite a bit of rapids in one particular area and my eye couldnt quite find the sweet spot, and BAM!

KT,

Do you have any photos yet of the prototype yet? Definatly would be cool to see. Friend and family back in central WI certainly think that you would one heck of a boat!

[Dennis Steele]

I run a few sets of rapids (more a serious of ledges) from time to time and it is more difficult comming down than going up.

For one thing when going upstream the current gives a little extra lift to the hull. More water being forced under the hull at a higher speed and the boat rides higher.

I also find that sometimes when comming downstream, I can't see the next ledge untill I am allready over another. Its just plain hard to pick out a good "line" when going downstream.

In addition, often I will get airborn comming downstream over the ledges and when the hull touches down, the water is forced away from the boat and your not really planning. The stern "ticks" the rock as it touches down.

Haven't done any damage yet from this. I think I'm ticking on the pump gaurd or swim platform.

I picked out a line to run in that pic above!

Tough getting back though!

[river rat316]

I really don't see a line...... You'll have to take me up there and show me it Dennis

[Kevin Turner]

Quote:

---

Do you have any photos yet of the prototype yet?

---

I need some one to post pics for me.

[Ice9]

Your solution is something like a tomcat swing-wing structure--a hull that curls down to give a big drift-shallow footprint, then up to make an ideal planing body, then once on a plane it curls back down to maximize shallow draft. Why don't you get right on that. I think I saw some materials that would do the trick in "Batman Begins."

ice