Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Seabright Skiff performance

Expand Messages
  • adharvey2
    I know this topic has been touched on before, at least regarding the tunnel stern boats like Rescue Miner, but I d still like to know more about what kind of
    Message 1 of 9 , Oct 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I know this topic has been touched on before, at least regarding the
      tunnel stern boats like Rescue Miner, but I'd still like to know 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, and 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 to
      compare Sally Hyde and Ketewomoke. I'm hoping somebody out there has
      either some experience to share or at least an opinion more educated
      than mine.
      Andrew Harvey.
    • Lewis E. Gordon
      Andrew, 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
      Message 2 of 9 , Oct 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Andrew,

        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 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 this
        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 complicated
        building. Just looking at the lines online, I don't think the topsides
        of either would lend themselves to plywood construction. As a novice
        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 regarding the
        > tunnel stern boats like Rescue Miner, but I'd still like to know 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, and 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 to
        > compare Sally Hyde and Ketewomoke. I'm hoping somebody out there has
        > either some experience to share or at least an opinion more educated
        > than mine.
        > Andrew Harvey.
      • ronw683
        Andrew - build the ketewomoke.. I have the plans for the pennant. The ketewomoke, pennant, and utility are all basically the same boat with minor differences,
        Message 3 of 9 , Oct 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Andrew - build the ketewomoke.. I have the plans for the pennant. The
          ketewomoke, pennant, and utility are all basically the same boat with
          minor differences, particularly in sheer. These are some of the old
          time everyday hard useage low power utilitarian type craft that where
          solid as a rock and performed beautifully day in, day out and in rough
          water. But they died out and no one builds them anymore, due to one
          reason, they are too slow. No one wants a boat with a top speed of less
          then 40 m.p.h. Times are changing though, and with the high cost of
          fuel, plus the baby boomers are getting older and no longer wants to
          ride around in a circle at 40 m.p.h. and when the water is a little
          rough, which is most of the time, being banged from wave top to wave
          top,and feeling exhausted at the end of the day.
          You will have all kinds of xtra room in the ketewomoke compared to the
          sally hyde, and I would be willing to bet that 2 large men could
          literally sit on the rails of the ketewomoke with out felling like the
          boat is going to roll over.Bottom line this is going to be a very
          solid,smooth and sure boat with lots of room and comfort, and able to
          handle rougher water then it should be out in.

          I like the sally hyde as well, and wish that a couple years back I had
          built it instead of the dory that I did build. But the sally hyde is a
          skiff, and maybe the ultimate skiff at that. If you was using it in
          shallow water for fishing and constantly dragging it out onto the bank,
          then it would be great, but I don't think it will compare to the
          ketewomoke in carrying capacity, stability, smooth ride, roominess, and
          rough water ride, as well as straight tracking.

          I hope to start the pennant by christmas and be ready to launch by
          april, if all goes well. You should give some thought to building the
          ketewomoke traditionally, and going with strip planking. No glass, just
          good paint job and nice trim work, you will have a solid boat that will
          last the rest of your life. It will be economical to operate, and a
          smooth riding boat that is a joy and relaxfull to use.
          Or at least that is my opinion.

          P.S. read the comments on the utility and pennant as well, after all
          they all 3 are basically the same. Look at how many people the pennant
          can carry when used as a taxi. A boat of this size to carry that many
          people has to be solid and sound. No tipsy deal here.That can be
          important if you are using it for trolling, and 2 big guys are leaning
          over the rail dragging in a fish. In comparison, a friend from oregon
          that has a 24 foot pacific dory,and uses it to troll for tuna, told me
          he wears a inflatable life jacket, he says when leaning over the side
          in pulling in a tuna, you have to be carefull if a wave hits the boat
          it will flip you out.Ain't that neat. That is due to the flat bottom
          and steeped sloped sides, common in the dory family.
          Good luck...


          --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "adharvey2" <adharvey@m...> wrote:
          > I know this topic has been touched on before, at least regarding the
          > tunnel stern boats like Rescue Miner, but I'd still like to know 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, and 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 to
          > compare Sally Hyde and Ketewomoke. I'm hoping somebody out there has
          > either some experience to share or at least an opinion more educated
          > than mine.
          > Andrew Harvey.
        • Mike Dolph
          Hi 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
          Message 4 of 9 , Oct 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi 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
            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 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
            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 this
            > 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 complicated
            > building. Just looking at the lines online, I don't think the
            topsides
            > of either would lend themselves to plywood construction. As a novice
            > 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 regarding
            the
            > > tunnel stern boats like Rescue Miner, but I'd still like to know
            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, and
            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 to
            > > compare Sally Hyde and Ketewomoke. I'm hoping somebody out there
            has
            > > either some experience to share or at least an opinion more
            educated
            > > than mine.
            > > Andrew Harvey.
          • Lewis E. Gordon
            Mike, Yeah, I m still lurking around and my 15 4 skiff is still half done while the 18 fiberglass panga gets us around on the lake. About Kattewombke, you
            Message 5 of 9 , Oct 5, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Mike,

              Yeah, I'm still lurking around and my 15' 4" skiff is still half done
              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 specific
              gravity is something like 1.02 air dried (white oak is somewhere
              around .67). But there are lots of choices, none cheap, but good wood
              is available.

              The "dowels" you mention are called "stopwaters", and you are right in
              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 And
              Use" as "37 Foot V-Bottomed Fishing Launch".

              Lewis

              --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dolph" <jdewolfe@a...> wrote:
              > Hi 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
              > 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 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
              > 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 this
              > > 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 complicated
              > > building. Just looking at the lines online, I don't think the
              > topsides
              > > of either would lend themselves to plywood construction. As a novice
              > > 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 regarding
              > the
              > > > tunnel stern boats like Rescue Miner, but I'd still like to know
              > 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, and
              > 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 to
              > > > compare Sally Hyde and Ketewomoke. I'm hoping somebody out there
              > has
              > > > either some experience to share or at least an opinion more
              > educated
              > > > than mine.
              > > > Andrew Harvey.
            • Mike Dolph
              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
              Message 6 of 9 , Oct 5, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                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
                done
                > 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
                specific
                > gravity is something like 1.02 air dried (white oak is somewhere
                > around .67). But there are lots of choices, none cheap, but good
                wood
                > is available.
                >
                > The "dowels" you mention are called "stopwaters", and you are right
                in
                > 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
                And
                > Use" as "37 Foot V-Bottomed Fishing Launch".
                >
                > Lewis
                >
                > --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dolph" <jdewolfe@a...>
                wrote:
                > > Hi 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
                > > 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
                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
                > > 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
                this
                > > > 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
                complicated
                > > > building. Just looking at the lines online, I don't think the
                > > topsides
                > > > of either would lend themselves to plywood construction. As a
                novice
                > > > 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
                regarding
                > > the
                > > > > tunnel stern boats like Rescue Miner, but I'd still like to
                know
                > > 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,
                and
                > > 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
                to
                > > > > compare Sally Hyde and Ketewomoke. I'm hoping somebody out
                there
                > > has
                > > > > either some experience to share or at least an opinion more
                > > educated
                > > > > than mine.
                > > > > Andrew Harvey.
              • adharvey2
                The 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
                Message 7 of 9 , Oct 7, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  The 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.
                  Andrew Harvey

                  --- 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
                  > done
                  > > 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
                  > specific
                  > > gravity is something like 1.02 air dried (white oak is somewhere
                  > > around .67). But there are lots of choices, none cheap, but good
                  > wood
                  > > is available.
                  > >
                  > > The "dowels" you mention are called "stopwaters", and you are right
                  > in
                  > > 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
                  > And
                  > > Use" as "37 Foot V-Bottomed Fishing Launch".
                  > >
                  > > Lewis
                  > >
                  > > --- In AtkinBoats@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dolph" <jdewolfe@a...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > > Hi 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
                  > > > 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
                  > 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
                  > > > 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
                  > this
                  > > > > 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
                  > complicated
                  > > > > building. Just looking at the lines online, I don't think the
                  > > > topsides
                  > > > > of either would lend themselves to plywood construction. As a
                  > novice
                  > > > > 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
                  > regarding
                  > > > the
                  > > > > > tunnel stern boats like Rescue Miner, but I'd still like to
                  > know
                  > > > 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,
                  > and
                  > > > 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
                  > to
                  > > > > > compare Sally Hyde and Ketewomoke. I'm hoping somebody out
                  > there
                  > > > has
                  > > > > > either some experience to share or at least an opinion more
                  > > > educated
                  > > > > > than mine.
                  > > > > > Andrew Harvey.
                  >
                • awctod@aol.com
                  I haven t spent a lot of time looking at powerboats of late. I did however grow up on Long Island where the Verity family of Freeport built many skiffs of
                  Message 8 of 9 , Oct 7, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I haven't spent a lot of time looking at powerboats of late. I did however
                    grow up on Long Island where the Verity family of Freeport built many skiffs of
                    similar design dating back to the Prohibition. They were used in the ocean a
                    great deal and were very good sea boats. one of the advantages to the box keel
                    was the straighter (flatter) ) shaft angle that it allowed. These boats had no
                    hook in their bottom and could really scoot along with moderate power. The
                    box keel also provided about the same protection as a tunnel. A cost savings was
                    also seen because they had only an outside packing gland. No shaft log or
                    strut was put on the older boats to my knowledge.
                    My dad remembers running the inlets and an occasional bump was not uncommon,
                    they just added power on the next incoming wave and off they went. Many of
                    these vessels were used commercially in the netting business as the power was
                    forward and the sterns were open. Gill netters could carry quite a load in
                    theses boats. A company in Freeport named Grover built a small 28' version in glass
                    for many years. I have seen a few of these vessels that were quite large. The
                    Mary from Greenport, NY was a rum runner and I bet she was 36' x 10.'
                    Part of the advantage of this design may come from the box itself as a
                    planning surface. Many of today's "go fast" boats have a planning "pad" on the
                    bottom aft. I believe that if testing were done on identical hulls in a towing tank
                    at planning speeds that the resistance of the box keel would be less. If not
                    I am quite sure it would plane with less power or at slightly slower speeds.
                    Good Luck
                    Tod


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • jkohnen@boat-links.com
                    Good advice, those old-fashioned utilities are nice. Billy Atkin wrote of Utility, This Utility has always been one of my favorite boats; she is a
                    Message 9 of 9 , Oct 14, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Good advice, those old-fashioned utilities are nice. Billy Atkin wrote of
                      Utility, "This Utility has always been one of my favorite boats; she is a
                      particularly well-behaved child." He usually based new designs for amateur
                      builders on older designs from which successful boats had been built. But
                      Sallie Hyde and the other Seabright skiffs aren't necessarily flighty
                      lightweights with little capacity. Sallie Hyde will probably be livelier in
                      rough water, but drier than Ketewemoke, and at least as seaworthy. As far as
                      capacity goes, how much do you need? <g> Look at this photo:

                      http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Photos/SallieHyde/SallieHyde-01.jpg

                      They're both good boats. I won't try to convince anyone one way or another.
                      <g>

                      Oregon surf "dories" are dories in name only nowadays. They traded
                      seaworthiness for speed back in the '60s and are just big flat-bottom skiffs
                      now. The wide bottom means that the boat has a lot of initial stability, but
                      it also means that it wants to conform to the face of any wave that comes
                      along. That's what your friend is afraid of, the high initial stability
                      means that the boat will very quickly tilt to conform to a sea coming from
                      the beam, and it could pitch him overboard! Dories have narrow bottoms and
                      little initial stability, they give a bit with the waves before the flaring
                      sides go to work, making them a much safer ride when things get bad.

                      On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 03:01:26 -0000, Ron wrote:
                      >
                      > Andrew - build the ketewomoke.. I have the plans for the pennant. The
                      > ketewomoke, pennant, and utility are all basically the same boat with
                      > minor differences, particularly in sheer. These are some of the old
                      > time everyday hard useage low power utilitarian type craft that where
                      > solid as a rock and performed beautifully day in, day out and in rough
                      > water. But they died out and no one builds them anymore, due to one
                      > reason, they are too slow. No one wants a boat with a top speed of less
                      > then 40 m.p.h. Times are changing though, and with the high cost of
                      > fuel, plus the baby boomers are getting older and no longer wants to
                      > ride around in a circle at 40 m.p.h. and when the water is a little
                      > rough, which is most of the time, being banged from wave top to wave
                      > top,and feeling exhausted at the end of the day.
                      > You will have all kinds of xtra room in the ketewomoke compared to the
                      > sally hyde, and I would be willing to bet that 2 large men could
                      > literally sit on the rails of the ketewomoke with out felling like the
                      > boat is going to roll over.Bottom line this is going to be a very
                      > solid,smooth and sure boat with lots of room and comfort, and able to
                      > handle rougher water then it should be out in.
                      >
                      > I like the sally hyde as well, and wish that a couple years back I had
                      > built it instead of the dory that I did build. But the sally hyde is a
                      > skiff, and maybe the ultimate skiff at that. If you was using it in
                      > shallow water for fishing and constantly dragging it out onto the bank,
                      > then it would be great, but I don't think it will compare to the
                      > ketewomoke in carrying capacity, stability, smooth ride, roominess, and
                      > rough water ride, as well as straight tracking.
                      > ...
                      > No tipsy deal here.That can be
                      > important if you are using it for trolling, and 2 big guys are leaning
                      > over the rail dragging in a fish. In comparison, a friend from oregon
                      > that has a 24 foot pacific dory,and uses it to troll for tuna, told me
                      > he wears a inflatable life jacket, he says when leaning over the side
                      > in pulling in a tuna, you have to be carefull if a wave hits the boat
                      > it will flip you out.Ain't that neat. That is due to the flat bottom
                      > and steeped sloped sides, common in the dory family.

                      --
                      John <jkohnen@...>
                      http://www.boat-links.com/
                      When I think of the number of disagreeable people that I know have gone
                      to a better world, I am sure hell won't be so bad at all. <Mark Twain>
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.