812Re: Seabright Skiff performance
- Oct 5, 2005Hi Lewis,
Nice to see you post; I was worried you had "shuffled off the mortal
coil". How's your boat building going?
On the construction problems the two types present I would say the
Sea Bright skiffs are the less demanding.
The Kettiwomoke will need a keel comprised of outer keel, spacer
pieces, drilled or split and hollowed out shaft log, spacer piece and
the portion of the keel that travels up to become the stern. All of
this has to be assembled with long bolts or drifts with holes drilled
across the joints so soft wood dowels can be inserted in them which
will be just under the plank edges when the planking is on. This
might be reduced to one really big keel piece and one piece running
up with one doweled joint to stop leakage along the joint into the
hull but good luck finding and buying that piece of wood in the USA.
You will also have to drill a long, true hole to carry the shaft.
Both designs need a Stem of course but the similar joints for the Sea
Bright Skiff will probably not need the doweled joint.
The best explanation I have ever seen of this was included in the
plans for the M-1 by John Gardner which were published in "National
Fisherman" my copy of which was lost in flooding. I have tried to
get a copy in any form from the folks at the magazine or to get them
to republish it but get no answer from them. I think I could get
photo copys from UT's marine school library in Port Aransas but I've
never made the trip to find out and don't know what copyright and
authors rights might be breached by any one of us doing that for our
--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Lewis E. Gordon"
> I'm not too educated on the subject myself, but I'll toss our a few
> comments. One of the Atkins in writing about one of the designs on
> this site compared the two hulls and the only thing he had negative
> say was that the Seabright type hyll was noiser at anchor. Sincedraft
> you're looking at utilities, I don't think you would care about this
> Either would do the job I'm sure. Sally Hyde offers a shallower
> and better drive line geometry at the expense of more complicatedtopsides
> building. Just looking at the lines online, I don't think the
> of either would lend themselves to plywood construction. As a noviceKatewombke
> builder having to work with "plank on frame", I would chose
> even though the shallow draft of Sally Hyde is attractive.wrote:
> --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "adharvey2" <adharvey@m...>
> > I know this topic has been touched on before, at least regardingthe
> > tunnel stern boats like Rescue Miner, but I'd still like to knowmore
> > about what kind of behavior can be expected from the V bottomLinny and
> > Seabright skiffs like Frank Toop, Happy Clam, Sally Hyde, etc., as
> > compared to the conventional vertical deadwood designs, like
> > Ketewomoke, for example. The many references in the articlesabout the
> > Seabright skiffs in general being "able", "seaworthy", and "safe"are
> > encouraging, but I am especially concernd about the boats'ability to
> > be stable and straight tracking while trolling in calm water, andyet
> > still avoid rolling, pitching, pounding, yawing, and all thatother
> > stuff that occurs when quartering or running off a rough sea.Also I'm
> > wondering how they're likley to trim at their designed "cruising"has
> > speeds, as compared to other types. I guess I'm really trying to
> > compare Sally Hyde and Ketewomoke. I'm hoping somebody out there
> > either some experience to share or at least an opinion moreeducated
> > than mine.
> > Andrew Harvey.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>