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

Re: Seabright Skiff performance

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Oct 5, 2005
      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 2 of 9 , Oct 7, 2005
        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 3 of 9 , Oct 7, 2005
          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 4 of 9 , Oct 14, 2005
            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.