A lightweight Raven from scraps

[Gamma1214]

So far I've built 4 strippers and my favorites at this point are the John Winters designed Raven and the Alan Gage designed Bloodvein. Both are high volume, wilderness capable trippers that are a pleasure to paddle, handle moving water very well and both of those builds came in reasonably light for the volume (the Tamarack Raven is 51# and the Tulip Poplar Bloodvein is 41#).

Those of you who've been watching these builds may recall that my architect friend had originally printed the Bloodvein plans a bit small and that got me to wondering... I really DO like the seaworthiness and handling capabilities of the Raven but I don't really need that kind of volume (I think it would be very happy with 350-400 lbs aboard while I can't imagine me + all gear ever exceeding 275). In addition, although the Tamarack makes a truly beautiful hull, it is significantly heavier than any of the other woods I've used.

In reality, my favorite color combination is probably the Aspen & Cherry that I used on my 1st build. I think I've still got a ton of those strips leftover (I might have to make some Cherry strips), I've got plenty of cloth, epoxy, etc and I'm thinking I can build another boat for the price of some paracord with which to lace the seats...

All of this has led to the decision to build a scaled-down version of the Raven for this winter's build. When I bought the last set of plans from Martin Step at Green Valley Boatworks, he sent them pre-printed but he's since sold the rights to the Winters' designs to Noah's Marine. This works out OK for this build because Noah's sells them as a PDF and I can have them printed at whatever scale I wish.

Now, if you've suffered through all of the above, I'd value your opinions: What scale should I use? I'm thinking of having them printed 15% smaller which should make the "Baby Raven" around 13 ft long & 27 inches wide (24 1/2 at waterline). The issue is that (I think) decreasing the wetted hull area will exponentially decrease the total carrying capacity and I'm wondering if a 15% reduction is size might reduce the tripping ability too much to be anything more than a day paddler.

Should I go conservative and reduce by only 10% or does 15% seem reasonable? Do you suppose the smaller hull will still handle the wind & waves well enough to maintain seaworthiness or do I give up too much freeboard?

Another wild card to throw into the mix: What happens if I do not reduce the distance between stations by 15% and leave it stretched out to 15 feet 4 inches with the narrower waterline and less freeboard? (I'm leaning toward reducing station spacing to 10 1/4 inches at this point but nothing is carved in stone)

I'll probably order plans tonight but I'm unlikely to get them printed for a couple of weeks. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

 

[snapper]

Having never done anything like this, I have nothing to suggest but, bottom line, I am looking forward to your build. I always learn so much when I follow along with you talented folks as you make your next canoe. Thanks for including us!

That's all for now. Take care and until next time...

be well.

snapper

 

[Alan Gage]

I've never scaled plans up or down but I'm of the opinion that a hull that's been scaled up or down is no longer the same boat. I certainly enjoy and can respect playing around and doing things differently but if I was looking for a lower volume boat I would choose one that was designed as such from the get-go if you find one that fits your needs.

Alan

 

[Jim Dodd]

Changing a design is fun ! It gives you something to look forward to, as you build .
It can also have pitfalls.

But none the less ? Go for it !

Jim

 

[memaquay]

I'm of the same opinion as Alan. A scaled down Raven would defeat the purpose of the boat. Why not build an Osprey? That's a boat you would probably fall in love with.

 

[Gamma1214]

Well, crap. It seemed to me that scaled & loaded proportionately, it should paddle the same except you'd need 15% smaller waves or risk taking on 15% more water in long wave trains. (although I DO suspect that reducing the hull by 15% would reduce capacity by a much larger percentage... maybe 40% or more?)

Not gonna lie, part of me wants to build one just to find out for myself (and I already have the scaled-down Bloodvein plans so I could compare those instead) but, with 2 guys that I have a lot of respect for saying "nay", maybe I should rethink.

I've been in contact with the owners of the (closed) Carrying Place Canoe & Boat Works to see about Jack's Special plans and she said she'd look for them next time she was in the shop but I haven't heard anything & I hate to pester... (I think we talked 2 weeks ago)

I enjoy both the Raven & Bloodvein about equally so I don't really NEED to keep seeking an awesome tripping hull but I get bored in the winter and why not have more boats?

I'll take a peek at the Osprey too.

 

[BigandSmall]

When it comes to scaling I first look at the width in regards to stability. Hull shape plays a dramatic part in stability but width is first number I look at. In regards to kayaks I know that if a boat is 24" wide it will be stable for me, 23" still good but more sporty, 22" I'm riding low and if it's a stable design I can paddle it enjoyably but it doesn't handle as designed. I once paddled a HV boat (Valley Etain 17-7) that was 21.5" wide but carried its volume to the ends. As a bigger guy with wide shoulders and head I had to pay attention even on small ocean waves from the side at my skill level. Now say a paddler was 5'10 and 180lbs that would likely have been a great touring boat at that width. The extra width I preferred for stability would be unnecessary and made the boat slower for the smaller guy. Now Alan made the point that a scaled design isn't the same boat but for me to get the same experience that he did paddling a Kite I needed the extra 1.06x1.06x1.06 = 19.01% that I added. After paddling it for a bit I realize I could have gone narrower since it has more stability than I really "need" but it is nice to be feel taken care of by a boat. If I ever build build a decked version of the Kite I'd likely go a little less on the width than I did and more on the length similar to what you're suggesting. Had I known there was a larger version hull of the Kite/Osprey out there (Shearwater) I would have started there as to not risk changing the design too much. Fortunately it worked out well for me.

Putting that thinking towards a Raven my understanding is that it's a high volume boat designed to be quite maneuverable. If you shrunk it too much you'll ride low and have the stems locked in. That was the experience I had between a Scorpio MV kayak I owned vs the HV version I bought later. The HV was so much more maneuverable and faster riding higher where as the MV was un-affected by wind.

Not sure if any of that ramble helps or not.