Revisting Bolger's Nymph

[Charlie43]

Years ago, I built Bolger's Nymph per Payson's instructions and hated the conventional stitch-and-glue process. But the result was a distinctive boat that rowed easily and well. Like many of the boats I've built, I used it for one fishing season and then gave it way, because I had moved on to other designs, especially my own Lake Britton series of flat-bottomed, single-chine prams that I'm still exploring. For fly-fishing flat water, nothing beats them. But flat-bottomed boats aren't "sea-kindly", and our local, windy, choppy waters need a rounder hull such as Nymph offers.

Bolger drew Nymph to be 7/9". But lofting shows the boat could be 2" longer while still avoiding the need to scarf planks, and plenty of people have built wider versions. So the design challenge is this. "If as much as of Bolger's lines as possible are kept, could a better boat be drawn and built? Obviously, I think so, or I wouldn't have launched this thread in which I intend to document the design and build process.


Edit: Revisiting the lofting shows that the boat cannot be made 2" longer if the boat is also widened a bit. 7'9" really is close to the max length if planks aren't scarfed. At 200lb displacement, that still puts 83" on the waterline when my required min is 81".

This is what the planks look like so far. I don't see any obvious distortions but need to double-check all plotting points for fairness before I begin cutting ply. My proposed construction method is "Position-and-Fillet".


.

[Charlie43]

As originally drawn,  Nymph measures 7'9" x 3'6", or a beam of 42". Thus, Shaw & Tenney would recommend 7' oars, because they assume a 2" overlap of the grips and advocate for 28% gearing. I'm comfortable with that overlap, but really prefer 30% gearing. Thus, I'd use 6.5' oars, whose shorter length makes better sense for the sort of boat handling and boat positioning required when fishing as opposed to straight-line rowing where 7's --and even 7.5's and outriggers-- would make sense.  Therefore, I can accept unchanged Nymph's 42" beam, and because I don't need more displacement than the original beam offers. But I really do want that 2" extra inches of possible boat length, because it means a faster, roomier boat without much cost in terms of weight or construction effort.





Edit. As I wrote above, I can't build a longer version of Nymph without scarfing planks if I also widen it a bit. So that's something I need to think about. Do I really need the extra length? I'm inclined to say, No, not when I've already got an 8'6" Britton.

Designers tend to scoff at small boats for finding them inadequate to their purpose, which is to market their designs to as wide a range of builders as possible who then will haul more cargo or passengers than is prudent should adverse sea conditions arise. I take the opposite tact. There will never be anyone in the boat but 120lb me, and I don't go looking for trouble on the water. If conditions aren't suitable fly fishing, I stay on shore.

For sure, once I did get caught out in a sudden squal that kicked up three-foot waves. But I rode that out safely, because safety on the water is more a matter of boat handing than qualities inherent in the design *provided* the boat isn't overloaded.

[ryeicestormcraft]

Wow, it's awesome to hear about your experience

[Charlie43]

Stormcraft,

It's good to see someone other than Mark and me posting. Tell us a bit about yourself. What sort of boats do you build?

Charlie

[ryeicestormcraft]

Glad to mix things up and join the conversation