- Yes, he disliked the Wish II looks (as dictated by function?), but I think they grew on him, or that is he soon found remarkably subtle ways to overcome that issue rather than the extremes shown at the time, at least in profile. Witness straight-sheered Eeek!, and ESC, only 10 designs later, and MJ, and AS29/39.
He protested at the need for the 18 sheets of 0.5" ply in Wish II #399 -(perhaps the economics of building a cheap looking boat from expensive materials. How about marine seconds, cosmetic rejects then?). He found the deck crew too exposed... and perhaps there were unmentioned issues of motor placement.
However, 151 designs later there is the similarly sized AS19, and with similar aesthetic issues, crew exposure, and the same pile of materials for almost the same displacement. AS19 has the motor placement resolved though, and any crew more than two can find a place on deck without upsetting boat trim as the intended four would do for Wish. Being lower to the water AS19 gets a little more sail area with 17% less ballast --- yet PCB does invite the builder to play with this last, the stiffness.
AS19, found "technically good", can only sleep two though, and Wish could be trim adjusted very easily when extended cruising that number with plenty more storage space. As for deck crew exposure, well there's solutions just like many adopt over and above the designed seatback railings of AS29.
Yep, it's largely about decoration (or visual habituation). Shipshape seems good for any with a Wish II go.
--- In email@example.com, "pvanderwaart" <pvanderwaart@...> wrote:
> > WISH II. I'm prepared to argue that what PCB mostly found
> > wrong with her, he used later anyway!
> IMHO, any functional problems were due to the boat being a bit too small for the capability that he tried to pack in. He didn't care for the looks, but the overall shape is about the same as the AS-29 which looks pretty shipshape on the water, so I think it's pretty much a matter of decoration.