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

Re: Seabird 86 [1 Attachment]

Expand Messages
  • prairiedog2332
    Personally I love the look of the raised deck as well as the comfort of leaning back against the sides with no deckhouse beam impinging. Newfoundlander is
    Message 1 of 8 , Dec 7, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Personally I love the look of the raised deck as well as the comfort of
      leaning back against the sides with no deckhouse beam impinging.
      Newfoundlander is another Bolger example.

      Disadvantage is no side decks to go forward along. So an access
      companionway forward is a plus - like on the latest Micro mods - as
      well as having control lines back to the helm are a help.

      Also looks great with a hard dodger/pilothouse addtion.

      Nels


      --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com, "John and Kathy Trussell"
      <jtrussell2@...> wrote:
      >
      > PCB has often pointed out that raised decks are a) stronger, b)
      provide more
      > headroom for people sitting inside the cabin against the side, and c)
      > increase buoyancy and seaworthiness. Raised decks are also found on
      Edey and
      > Duff's Stonehorse, some versions of the San Juan 21 and even a Cal 20.
      > Unfortunately, a lot of people just don't like the way they look.
      >
      >
      >
      > JohnT
      >
      >
      >
      > _____
      >
      > From: bolger@yahoogroups.com [mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
      Of
      > Wayne Gilham
      > Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 10:32 PM
      > To: bolger@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [bolger] Re: Seabird 86 [1 Attachment]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Attachment(s) from Wayne Gilham included below]
      >
      > Y'know, it's interesting to me that the
      > cockpit/deck/cabintop/forward-cockpit, etc etc etc of this SeaBird is
      nearly
      > identical to Bolger's famous and oft-built Black Skimmer-- same
      flush-deck
      > right to gunwales, nearly same portlights -- but that boat's a
      > leeboard-sharpie, thus totally different under-water. AND a cat-yawl,
      so
      > totally different rig as well.
      >
      > (sorry, I haven't reviewed SeaBird's interior accommodations, so can't
      > comment on similarities there)
      >
      > Heck, even the stout tall verticals on the companionway-hatch
      structure, to
      > strengthen the foredeck as well as to provide some centerline
      > not-quite-headroom, is the same on both!
      >
      > I owned a Black Skimmer, and found her to be very user-friendly from
      that
      > layout -- I'd say Phil "copied" one-to-the-other (no idea which was
      first)
      > because it was a layout / construction proven to WORK, both for the
      build,
      > and for the usage.
      >
      > Wayne Gilham
      >
      > From: bolger@yahoogroups.com <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>
      > [mailto:bolger@yahoogroups.com <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
      Behalf
      > Of
      > prairiedog2332
      > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 8:42 AM
      > To: bolger@yahoogroups.com <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com>
      > Subject: [bolger] Re: Seabird 86
      >
      >
      > Yes, Mr. Bolger mentioned it was "tiddly at anchor":-)
      > Looking at the drawings on page 254 of BWAM one can visualize why it
      might
      > seem cramped. When the berths are rigged there is no space to access
      the
      > table and even get to the WC. And they have to be stowed to get access
      to
      > the table and the cooking arrangement with is rather awkward as it all
      > slides under the cockpit. This boat does fall under the "bed and
      brakfast"
      > section of the book though.
      > The large bilge panels rob a lot of potential storage and living
      space, but
      > of course add to it's seaworthiness. A compromise between it and LM
      might be
      > the Michalak Picara with narrower bilge panels?
      > http://www.duckworksbbs.com/plans/jim/picara/index.htm
      > But Jim makes himself clear that he does not design off-shore boats.
      Picara
      > might be close.
      > Nels
      >
      > --- In bolger@yahoogroups.com <mailto:bolger%40yahoogroups.com> ,
      "Peter"
      > pvanderwaart@ wrote:
      > >
      > > PCB wrote somewhere that he had gotten a sail on a Seabird '86.
      (This was
      > before the very nice German boat, so at least two were built.) He said
      it
      > was initially tender as might be expected from the narrow waterline,
      but
      > sailed in a satisfactory manner.
      > >
      > > You have to put his remarks in context. He had drawn it thinking in
      terms
      > of motorsailer, so he wouldn't have expected J-24 performance, and
      he'd
      > hardly have written that the boat was a dog and to be avoided in any
      case.
      > On the other hand, he and Suzanne put a lot of work into the sloop and
      > Navigator versions later, so he must have thought it was pretty
      decent. And
      > he certainly would not have gone for the Navigator if he thought it
      couldn't
      > carry the weight.
      > >
      > > Seabird '86 strikes me as a cruising version of Chebacco. The hull
      forms
      > are similar, and they both have the very practical OB well. The
      ballast keel
      > of Seabird makes her more forgiving of a helmsman's inattention in a
      breeze.
      > PCB tried to be clever about storage for gear and duffle. Any
      22-footer is
      > cramped inside, especially after a couple days of rain.
      > >
      > > Seabird makes an interesting contrast to Long Micro. The interior of
      LM
      > takes advantage of the boxy shape where SB loses volume where the LM
      has the
      > chine. LM might be faster is a lot of conditions (I gather the rig is
      > generous), but much more jarring than SB.
      > >
      >
      > No virus found in this message.
      > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
      > Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2102/4650 - Release Date:
      12/01/11
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.