819Re: Seabright Skiff performance
- Oct 7, 2005The plot thickens! Thanks John for posting "Sgt. Faunce", yet another
v bottom seabright skiff. If I'd just seen the body plan with no other
reference I'd have sworn I was looking at Sally Hyde or Frank Toop or
one of several other boats in the catalog. But what a difference in
proportions!. Is it just me or does it not look nearly as long,
narrow, and flat in the photos as it does on paper?
Thanks everone for your comments thus far regarding the
conventional V bottoms and the seabright skiffs. I've been thinking
along the same lines as Mike regarding the ease of building issue: the
box deadwood looks pretty easy and straight forward versus a solid
deadwood. As for building with plywood, I think Sally Hyde could be
built lapstrake just like Happy Clam, using plywood "planks". The only
tricky spot I can see in the study plans is right along the horn
timber, especially on the "high speed" version, were there's a fair
amount of reverse curve in the bottom right at the stern - sort of a
built in trim tab I think. There you'd have to use batten seam or
layers or something. Otherwise Sally Hyde looks doable to me. As for
Ketewomke, I don't have plans for her so I don't know the
construction, wether carvel or batten seam, but I agree with Lewis
that sheet ply is probably not an option due to the twist in the
bottom and rounding in the topsides. I'm still not sure wether the
seabright skiffs should be considered soft riding, stable, or easily
steered. I'm still concerned by Wm. Atkin's comment in the descrition
of Sunray: "These boats seem to have a very definite use, and at
speeds up to 15 to 18 miles an hour are quite satisfactory. However,
for high speed and for use in rough water a wholesome boat of the V
bottom type is a far better craft." Of course maybe he's refering here
primarily to the round bottom boats.
I honestly don't know why I'm making such a big deal out of this
since I plan to spend 90% of my time in this boat goig 1 1/2 mph on a
sunny, calm day.
--- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dolph" <jdewolfe@a...> wrote:
> I just ordered a copy from Mystic Seaport, thanks for the info; I had
> no idea he had published that anywhere else. Even if offsets are not
> included just the description is worth the money and the other small
> boats are gold, too. I've ordered a too expensive digital camera and
> given notice at my apartment in San Antonio. I'll stay up to two
> months with my daughter in Austin and if all runs well with Brazilian
> authorities will go to Brasil; if not I guess I'll get an apartment
> in Austin. I might try the Rockport area as a place to build a boat
> but since I have two more grandbabies coming after the first of the
> year for now it's Brasil or diaper duty.
> Oh, the info about the complexities of keel and shaftlogs was for
> adharvey's benefit. Stopwaters eh? Hey, I knew that! Yeah, that's
> the ticket.
> Mike Dolph
> --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Lewis E. Gordon"
> <l_gordon_nica@y...> wrote:
> > Mike,
> > Yeah, I'm still lurking around and my 15' 4" skiff is still half
> > while the 18' fiberglass "panga" gets us around on the lake. About
> > Kattewombke, you have to remember that I am in Nicaragua and getting
> > the big chunks of wood for the keel is no problem. Well there is a
> > slight problem as the preffered wood is SO heavy. I think the
> > gravity is something like 1.02 air dried (white oak is somewhere
> > around .67). But there are lots of choices, none cheap, but good
> > is available.
> > The "dowels" you mention are called "stopwaters", and you are right
> > that John Gardner does a great job of explaining keel construction.
> > Regarding M2 (M1 was the round bottom whose lines were furnished by
> > Phil Bolger), it is written up in his book "Wooden Boats To Build
> > Use" as "37 Foot V-Bottomed Fishing Launch".
> > Lewis
> > --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dolph" <jdewolfe@a...>
> > > Hi Lewis,
> > >
> > > Nice to see you post; I was worried you had "shuffled off the
> > > coil". How's your boat building going?
> > >
> > > On the construction problems the two types present I would say
> > > 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
> > > the portion of the keel that travels up to become the stern. All
> > > this has to be assembled with long bolts or drifts with holes
> > > across the joints so soft wood dowels can be inserted in them
> > > 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
> > > up with one doweled joint to stop leakage along the joint into
> > > hull but good luck finding and buying that piece of wood in the
> > > You will also have to drill a long, true hole to carry the
> > > Both designs need a Stem of course but the similar joints for the
> > > 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
> > > get a copy in any form from the folks at the magazine or to get
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > purposes.
> > >
> > > Mike Dolph
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Lewis E. Gordon"
> > > <l_gordon_nica@y...> wrote:
> > > > Andrew,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not too educated on the subject myself, but I'll toss our a
> > > > comments. One of the Atkins in writing about one of the designs
> > > > this site compared the two hulls and the only thing he had
> > > to
> > > > say was that the Seabright type hyll was noiser at anchor. Since
> > > > you're looking at utilities, I don't think you would care about
> > > > aspect.
> > > >
> > > > Either would do the job I'm sure. Sally Hyde offers a shallower
> > > draft
> > > > and better drive line geometry at the expense of more
> > > > building. Just looking at the lines online, I don't think the
> > > topsides
> > > > of either would lend themselves to plywood construction. As a
> > > > builder having to work with "plank on frame", I would chose
> > > Katewombke
> > > > even though the shallow draft of Sally Hyde is attractive.
> > > >
> > > > Lewis
> > > >
> > > > --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "adharvey2" <adharvey@m...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I know this topic has been touched on before, at least
> > > the
> > > > > tunnel stern boats like Rescue Miner, but I'd still like to
> > > more
> > > > > about what kind of behavior can be expected from the V bottom
> > > > > Seabright skiffs like Frank Toop, Happy Clam, Sally Hyde,
> etc., as
> > > > > compared to the conventional vertical deadwood designs, like
> > > Linny and
> > > > > Ketewomoke, for example. The many references in the articles
> > > about 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,
> > > yet
> > > > > still avoid rolling, pitching, pounding, yawing, and all that
> > > other
> > > > > 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"
> > > > > speeds, as compared to other types. I guess I'm really trying
> > > > > compare Sally Hyde and Ketewomoke. I'm hoping somebody out
> > > has
> > > > > either some experience to share or at least an opinion more
> > > educated
> > > > > than mine.
> > > > > Andrew Harvey.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>