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

Re: Seabright Skiff performance

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.