Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Grumman freighter on steroids: would you buy?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default Grumman freighter on steroids: would you buy?

    I keep reading: "We need an alum freighter larger than the Grumman 19'." OK, let's talk; that is my desire, too. If you could buy a 21' alum freighter for, say $6300 FOB Fairbanks, would you? For kicks, let's say it has the approx measurements of a Scott 21', could handle a 30 hp 4-stroke, and maybe even have a tunnel model for a jet pump. If said canoe were custom welded, it would likely have to have a 1/8" hull, making it about 275 lbs (my guess). If riveted, probably a .070" hull, and weigh 180 lbs (my guess, again). Too heavy? Too spendy? Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Circle, AK.
    Posts
    616

    Default to big and heavey

    I'd be happy if Osage stretched theirs to 19ft., I want something I can drag or portage if I have to and it would be way under $6000, maybe around $2000.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Making any sort of canoe with all the compound angles/curves associated with them is going to be pretty expensive (assuming a limited production run.) I have been thinking about the issue and I believe that modifying an existing canoe would be a lot more cost effective.

    Say for example, taking a 19 grumman, and building a transom extension that extended from say 4 feet in front of the transom to 2-3 feet behind the transom. We could then make the transom wider, maybe even a bit taller/deeper. The result would be a 21-22 foot boat with a nice wide transom, keeping the compound curves that makes the canoe cut through the water so nicely, and designing the rear extension in such a way that fabrication is easily accomplished by using standard fabrication equipment, rolls, breaks, etc.

    Some of the details would be a bit tricky but I am sure that it would be very doable.

    Not sure if it would do what you had in mind Jklingel, but it would probably be closer to my price range and would probably give you equivelant performance.

    -Frozen

  4. #4
    Member Akgramps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Last civilized place on the planet
    Posts
    2,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jklingel View Post
    I keep reading: "We need an alum freighter larger than the Grumman 19'." OK, let's talk; that is my desire, too. If you could buy a 21' alum freighter for, say $6300 FOB Fairbanks, would you? For kicks, let's say it has the approx measurements of a Scott 21', could handle a 30 hp 4-stroke, and maybe even have a tunnel model for a jet pump. If said canoe were custom welded, it would likely have to have a 1/8" hull, making it about 275 lbs (my guess). If riveted, probably a .070" hull, and weigh 180 lbs (my guess, again). Too heavy? Too spendy? Thoughts?
    I know nothing about canoes, except for the old 17 foot grumman I have in the yard. Very curious why would a riveted boat be so much thinner and lighter?

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    1,762

    Default weight

    AKGRAMPS the question I have for you is why do they make AIR PLANES OUT OF METAL, AN NOT COMPOSET MATERIAL? STRENDGTH TO WEIGHT RATIO I THINK

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Default Akgramps

    It's a welding issue; tissue paper is hard to weld. The thinnest I've been told for welding aluminum boats is .080; most welders say they'd go to .100 and not lower. You can rivet most anything, of course, but .040 is probably as light as you'd want to go and have any strength (Marathon/Grumman 19' freighters, that I hear are now .050). I just guessed that a larger, longer canoe would be made of heavier gauge. That's all I know on the issue.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks, AK
    Posts
    554

    Thumbs up Frozen

    That thought has occurred to me many times, but I would still like a wider canoe. That said, the Grumman modified as you suggest would be a great compromise, esp if you could work in a tunnel. Give the project some thought, and see what you think a person would have to charge to explode a Grumman that way. Maybe we could get Karold or some shop in N Po to glue one up. The idea of a long, skinny flat bottom is another compromise, and I hear Madboater started another thread about that. A flat bottom is not a canoe, but it may be what we have to deal w/, as the Magnum Moose Canoe is still a fantasy. Thanks for your comments.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •