Ninigret or Blackbird?

[Rico]

After years of driving my wife nuts (nuttier?), at last I've narrowed it down to 2 boats. I'm torn between building the Bolger/Bassett Blackbird or the Atkin's Ninigret. I'd be interested in hearing any pros and cons of opinion any of you might have regarding each boat. What would be your criteria to make the final choice? I'd attach a couple of pictures for those unfamiliar with the two designs, but I'm painfully new to this new-fangled website and computer attachments thing and just can't figure it out. Suffice to say, they are both about 22' trailerable-cuddy-cabin-motor-well-runabouts. I really could see building and using either of them.

Gentlemen, and possibly ladies, I embrace your bombardment of opinion.

Mahalo

[rbgarr]

Ninigret seems a simpler build so if you're indifferent between the two why not get on the water sooner?

[JimD]

Blackbird:

http://i13.tinypic.com/3yrv2qc.jpg

Ninigret:

http://www.boat-links.com/Atkinco/Photos/Ninigret/Ninigret-02.jpg

Bateau's homage to Ninigret, Nina:

http://www.bateau2.com/gallery/LB22/photos/LB22_port_cabin.jpg

I agree with rbgarr that Blackbird would be considerably more work to build. More money, too. See this old thread for more discussion on Blackbird: http://www.woodenboat.com/forum//showthread.php?t=64285

They are very different looking boats. Ninigret looks simple and workboatish compared to the very stylish, almost glamorous looking Blackbird. What's your personality type when it comes to such distinctions? Mine would be for Ninigret. Also, Blackbird calls for up to twice the horsepower. I couldn't afford to run one.

[Spokaloo]

Oddly, the Blackbird and Ninigret are both very friendly to a 40hp outboard. Blackbird is underpowered with it, but will semi-plane, Ninigret is slightly overpowered, and will readily scoot with it.

As I am a workboat guy, Im more of a Ninigret fan. I do love the lines of Bolger's boat, that cabin is just gorgeous, but shes going to take literally double or more time, due to the materials and building technique. If you are one whom will enjoy the build more than the use, and are either skilled or willing to spend the time to learn, then Blackbird might be the boat.

I think their personality on the water is actually fairly similar, being semi-planing, double wedge boats in similar proportion. Both will have similar seahandling, and will perform the same tasks in the water. Obviously accomodations are a bit better in Blackbird (a galley will fit), but I like the simplicity of cooking on the hibachi on the back decks.

One thing to keep in mind, I might be a bit biased:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b65/fighterama2/cloud%20cap/cloudcap023.jpg

I built a Nina (the bateau iteration of Ninigret) cabinless, with 50hp in the well. 29.7mph on the last trip out, cruises at 18mph using about 2gph, and we love the boat.


E

[Rico]

Thanks, gents, for your viewpoints. They've started to help me to shape a decision. And thankyou for the photos and links!

I can't say that I'm indifferent between the two boats, I'd say I'm taken by them equally - personally, I think they're both head-turners, but both for different reasons. And my passion for building my boat isn't solely to get on the water as quickly as possible...

A. I have 3 kids aged 5,7, and 9. Two things: 1) they're bombarded by "gadgety" computerized toys on TV and owned by friends who seem to believe they're entitled continually to more store-bought junk; 2) my kids don't listen to me, they watch me. Just the process of building reinforces the idea of creating by hand something to be proud of without going to the store and buying a shiny, wrapped in plastic, shipped from China waste of money. My kids hang out with me regularly in the woodshop, with Mario Lanza in the background.

B. I'm lucky to have accumulated (through my work) maybe 7 thousand board feet of very old growth, straight-grained Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, Maple, and Pacific Yellow Cedar that I've been air-drying for 4-10 years. So my wood cost is zero. Unless I use plywood. I can't think of anything better to do with amazing wood than to build an amazing boat. And there's no better day to me than to bury myself knee-deep in shavings.

These comatose philosophical things being said, I also lean to the practical "workboat" styles, not bedazzled with teak decks and 37 coats of "MY-GOD-WATCH-OUT-YOU-DON'T-SCRATCH-THE" high-gloss varnish. My inititation to the sea was with with my Russian Grandfather who had been a Leiutenant in the Imperial Navy during WWI aboard the battleship "Rostislav". The boat he built when I was still in diapers was a beamy 17-foot, bilge-keeled dory with canvas sails he cut and sewed himself (I still have the treadle sewing machine). "Burin" was slow and seaworthy, with paint-and-canvas decks, an incredibly unreliable Seagull engine, and not even a bucket - we used the off-center motorwell; she was basic at best, but pure dream to a little boy.

Both these boats tickle a little string inside me - just two different strings.

Oops... to the annoyance and entertainment of my wife (or as I affectionately call her - my little reason for therapy), it's too easy for me to ramble, so back to questions:

Spookaloo - your boat is SWEET (and great link and story with good insights). Regarding the motorwell - I can't seem to find specific discussion in the Forum, but does it affect lift in the aft section? I'd seen a shot of "Blackbird" running, and it appears she "squats" a bit trying to get out of the trough of her forward section. Also, it looks like there's a ton of water pumping through the hole of the motorwell at the transom. I do know that one of the knocks on Ninigret is that her stern is a bit narrow to give good lift and that widening the aft end would enhance her performance. Apparently, the best running shots of Ningret are of a modified design to improve her performance. So Spookaloo, are you able to put your bias aside - any motorwell issues that Cloud Cap (good name!) has given you?

Incidentally, I see plenty of reference to Jacques Mertens' boats. I've been to his website often, and the scuttlebutt is that he's very available for assistance to everyone. Am I the only one who wonders why his designs and boats are ignored at WoodenBoat? And for that matter, Glen Witt or Ken Hankinson? Did I miss an issue, or is there something double-top-secret and not just not good cricket to be discussed?

[JimD]

Rico, with the wood you have at hand it would almost be a shame to build either of these boats, at least with that wood. Ninigret is designed for plywood and Blackbird is cold molded. As for Mertens, Witt, and Hankinson, Mertens designs generally call for a lot of epoxy and glass. Significantly more than a typical plywood hull that is just sheathed with a layer of glass. His designs are well thought of but being this is a wooden boat forum they don't get quite as much ink as designers whose methods seem to have more to do with wood. Witt and Hankinson are old timers in the biz, ex partners recently reunited. Hankinson had his own website for a long time before 'retiring' it - possibly due at least in part to legal issues concerning some of the plans he was selling that were not his own and which are no longer available on the Glen-L site. Some great designs but not much new coming off the drawing boards and little personal accessability by builders. I've built two Glen-L boats and would like to build a Hankinson tug one fine day. Good boats.

[Spokaloo]

Firstly, lets put the Mertens thing to bed. His boats are generally adaptations of a collection of boats. My boat is an adaptation of W.M. Hand boats, Ninigret, Bolger's Halloween, and nuances of coastal workboats all blended together. His designs contain equal area of wood, but because he uses composite construction (real laminates of biax instead of abrasion prevention laminates of small woven), he is tossed aside by the Maine wood boat community. Personally, I find it to be their loss, as his following is growing in spades.

On to the boats.

Any boat set up with a motorwell will experience spray off the outboard leg. On a transom mounted outboard, the spray flies off in its desired direction, and remains below the height of the transom so we never see it. In the motorwells, the spray is contained, and as such you see a volume of water coming off the well sides. It doesn't cause drag, it is just a function of the spray and the motorwell sides. Such is life.

Here is some evidence:

At about 18 mph:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b65/fighterama2/cloud%20cap/MiscphotostoSep12007147.jpg

At about 25:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b65/fighterama2/cloud%20cap/MiscphotostoSep12007149.jpg

As to her narrowness at the stern, you need to evaluate what you want the boat to do. My boat tends to have some Frost-esque traits in that she planes moreso on her midsection than she does on the transom until you get over 25mph. She does drag her stern in the water a little (less than Bolger's boat, but not by much), and she may have a slight penalty in speed and efficiency over that 25mph speed. Conversely, that narrow transom is precisely the reason shes so stinkin efficient below that speed. There is absolutely no perceptible hump speed on the Atkin hull shape. For every millimeter I slide the throttle forward, there is an increase in speed. She sheds the whitewater on the wake at 6 mph, and the wake merely stretches and flattens from there on up. There is a point at about 22-24 mph where you can feel the bow drop slightly, and Im guessing at this speed the pressure on the aft sections finally comes up to a point to support all the bow out of the water. At full speed, she literally has 8 feet of hull out of the water, riding on the mid and aft sections of the run. I can run for DAYS at 12 mph, burning less than a gallon an hour at 2000rpm with my 50 hp engine. In fact, I tested the rough mileage again last weekend and found her to get 8 miles per gallon. This weekend I grabbed my requisite 10 gallons of fuel in cans, and wasn't able to empty even the first can after running her 3 days last weekend from spot to spot fishing and anchoring up to relax.

I think motorwell issues would probably be using up space inside the hull (which all of mine is converted to storage), a little bit of additional weight, and an increase in deck space between you and your mooring lines when casting off. Having that extra buoyancy and carrying your motor further inboard in taller seas is great, however, as a wave that would normally swamp a standard transom/outboard setup will merely lift the aft end of the boat on the Ninigret.

As for construction, I agree that not using your abundant wood supply would be a shame. I think with a little ingenuity on your part (and possibly a phone call to someone like MMD, Iain Oughtred, et al.) could result in sheathing her not in ply, but some of your cedar. Hell, you could do it in fir, but she will be lighter and more nimble with the cedar. It is a lapstrake topside as planned, so converting would be cake. The hull sections could easily be done in fir, using carvel techniques, or better yet cold molded in cedar. That'd be light, use your lumber, and make a very stout hull.

Thanks for the kind comments. Im no master craftsman, but I can take my family, friends, relatives, accomplices, and random strangers out for a ride in the boat I built with my bare hands. That, coupled with the fact that I burn less than a quarter of the gas most 22 foot boats in my area do, brings me tremendous joy.

E

[Rico]

Now Spookaloo - NOW THAT WAS AN ANSWER! Many thanks!

Your detailed points on getting your boat up and going are great (especially with the accompanying pics). I like the sound of your specific results and your explanation of motor well realities. Personally, I've never been a speed demon, so 10-12 knots is plenty of speed for me - your experience is well expressed.

Those Atkin boys knew how to draw a boat. I have 4 volumes of the original Motorboating Ideal Series filled with all their designs. As far as I'm concerned, they're all gorgeous.

Anyway, should I go either of these designs (Atkins or Bolger), I would scale up the length proportionally to an 8'6" beam (keeping her trailerable), where a cuddy cabin and small windscreen would provide some more protection for the kids, especially as we want to do some overnighting. I've received an update from Phil Bolger with modified to his original Blacbird design with 3 different covered-in windscreen arrangements, as well as a deeper forefoot for a bit better ride in a chop.

As for my wood - If I cold mold, I can't be using knotty poplar; it's gotta be the good stuff, and rest assured the rest of it will show well in the interior joinery. To me, no higher respect can be shown to good wood than to use it in the fair curves of a well-designed boat.

And as for the Glen L's, Mertenses, etc - I agree it's too bad. I think their sheer inspiration to the backyard boastbuilders is notable - the important thing is that people do some learning and then just get out there and take that stab at building. I think that's what the Atkins were all about and it'd carried on with the likes of the Gartsides who just like to see people get in there and do it. There's an interesting design mix in your comments - I guess it goes along with the old saying that if you copy one boat it's plagiarism; if you copy 2 boats, it's research.

Mahalo

Rick

PS - maybe a stupid(er) question - but what' "Frost-esque" mean?

[Rico]

Now Spookaloo - NOW THAT WAS AN ANSWER! Many thanks!

Your detailed points on getting your boat up and going are great (especially with the accompanying pics). I like the sound of your specific results and your explanation of motor well realities. Personally, I've never been a speed demon, so 10-12 knots is plenty of speed for me - your experience is well expressed.

Those Atkin boys knew how to draw a boat. I have 4 volumes of the original Motorboating Ideal Series filled with all their designs. As far as I'm concerned, they're all gorgeous.

Anyway, should I go either of these designs (Atkins or Bolger), I would scale up the length proportionally to an 8'6" beam (keeping her trailerable), where a cuddy cabin and small windscreen would provide some more protection for the kids, especially as we want to do some overnighting. I've received an update from Phil Bolger with modified to his original Blacbird design with 3 different covered-in windscreen arrangements, as well as a deeper forefoot for a bit better ride in a chop.

As for my wood - If I cold mold, I can't be using knotty poplar; it's gotta be the good stuff, and rest assured the rest of it will show well in the interior joinery. To me, no higher respect can be shown to good wood than to use it in the fair curves of a well-designed boat.

And as for the Glen L's, Mertenses, etc - I agree it's too bad. I think their sheer inspiration to the backyard boastbuilders is notable - the important thing is that people do some learning and then just get out there and take that stab at building. I think that's what the Atkins were all about and it'd carried on with the likes of the Gartsides who just like to see people get in there and do it. There's an interesting design mix in your comments - I guess it goes along with the old saying that if you copy one boat it's plagiarism; if you copy 2 boats, it's research.

Mahalo

Rick

PS - maybe a stupid(er) question - but what' "Frost-esque" mean?

[erster]

A well is a creature of splash? I take issue with this statement for a different point of view of turbulent wash water from the prop, especially considering this shot here. Your boat was initially sold as a semi displacment hull and the bottom also carries some simularities to that fact.
But at crusing speeds of over 20 in open water, with the added plywood sticking out will cause you grief and discomfort in open seaway conditions of any combination of swell and wind sea. Thats a guarantee my friend, no matter what Mr. Merten has sold you.
If I am seeing this correctly, you have an additional area of around 3 inches of plywood that extends out past the transom into the open motor. Is this indeed what you have here? I see absolutely no benefit and nothing but a potential issue at best, but can cause some serious safety issues, but nothing more than performance at the best case if you are running in the ocean in some weather here. While your fuel comsumption maybe great, this also stems from the liteweight of the hull and the engine that you are using.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b65/fighterama2/cloud%20cap/MiscphotostoSep12007147.jpg

[Spokaloo]

Will Frost is the godfather of modern Lobsterboat design (A legacy that lives on in his kids at Lowell boats). His boats, most notably a boat called Leonard W, had an inane aptitude to plane when they shouldn't. These boats could be overpowered, and took this power to planing boat speeds with very un-planing-boat buttock lines. These were recently "borrowed" and put into use by Rumery's to build the Frost Torpedo, or the renamed T38. Interesting boat.


A well is a creature of splash? I take issue with this statement for a different point of view of turbulent wash water from the prop, especially considering this shot here. Your boat was initially sold as a semi displacment hull and the bottom also carries some simularities to that fact.
But at crusing speeds of over 20 in open water, with the added plywood sticking out will cause you grief and discomfort in open seaway conditions of any combination of swell and wind sea. Thats a guarantee my friend, no matter what Mr. Merten has sold you.
If I am seeing this correctly, you have an additional area of around 3 inches of plywood that extends out past the transom into the open motor. Is this indeed what you have here? I see absolutely no benefit and nothing but a potential issue at best, but can cause some serious safety issues, but nothing more than performance at the best case if you are running in the ocean in some weather here. While your fuel comsumption maybe great, this also stems from the liteweight of the hull and the engine that you are using.


Erster, while I generally relish your posts, Im confused by this one.

Every drop you see of spray in that well is coming off the FRONT of the drive leg. I went rounds with Jacques over this very point while building, and he was oddly correct in the end. I have zero drag from the sides once past about 7kts (the water vacates the well), I haven't had a single experience (it has been seatrialled about 15 hrs so far) of waves coming in from the stern altering her direction an ounce. She does root, but thats the forefoot talking. The skeg does a great job of keeping that rare occurrence in check, and you can literally feel the two balance each other out.

The gent who took this picture was a former builder himself for Carver yachts, and had similar concerns to yours. Once he saw the well in action, he agreed that it does not generate drag at any level of trim, angle of attack, or degree of turn. Only when the boat falls off of plane in a turn does it become so much as wet from the surrounding water.

The idea was to increase the lifting surfaces aft, as well as give double the level of strength in the joint between the motorwell side/stringer assy and the hull panels themselves. This joint has bilateral fillets instead of a single fillet with a glass wrap on the well side.

At first I agreed with your statement that it was an issue. But once the boat was built and sent on her way, I noted that she has no adverse reaction.

If you have more data, by all means.

E

[JimD]

...should I go either of these designs (Atkins or Bolger), I would scale up the length proportionally to an 8'6" beam...

A little more friendly advice, but that is a bad idea. As you say, the Atkins knew how to draw a boat. So you should let them draw it and stick to the building part.

[erster]

There is zero benefits in having additional wood extending out past the face of the transom, I mean zero!!!!. There are advantages to splash guards along the bottom sides of the well, which I do not see on the photos. The downside it that if you are required to slow down from what you are describing as above 20 knots, in a situation that has a three to four foot seas, especially a following sea while running above displacement speed, the boat may act as if it has taken on water and will not respond to helm. Its like having a small sea anchor off the stern. I have the actual plans and will take some time in the next few days and study them in further depth. But you surely gain nothing and can potentially broach your boat in some of the areas of inlets where you experience wind against tides. At displacement speeds around ten knots, you probably will never notice a serious handling issue as described. I would cut the pieces off pronto, if I owned that boat, especially since I operate in some nasty inlet conditions myself. Thats just my take on it from the shots.
This is a working situation that does add some surface area for performance, also stopping some of the water splashing up the well area, but also allows water not to be trapped in your well area. Whatever you wish to do, and whatever Mr. Merten feels is proper, I can tell you what works. You can close up the transom area with the additional pieces that does extend out a bit. But you still have a very large area that is open ands will never keep any heavy sea from the stern from inside your boat, if indeed that is his contention.

With well boats, the biggest issue when you run your boat in anything other than a flat calm sea, is the turbulence that is generated by the engine combined with water being trapped in turns. This happens in swell conditions especially and when you are below the speed that allows you to clear the water. Those times include middle 15 to 17 knots too. Just my take on it. The big problem is that many of those fancy engiineers in Florida have no sea time on many of the hulls that they are selling plans for. If this offends anyone, so be it. Been in simular situations, butting heads with them myself. If things also work out next week, I will have a full blown example for your viewing pleasure to further follow up on my opinionated opinion on this subject.;).


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/Bateau1/DSC02926.jpg

[Spokaloo]

Interesting take. I don't have empirical data of any type to give you to either confirm or deny your statements, so I can't really argue the point. This boat spends 99% of its life in an inland lake (24 miles long, 1/2 mile wide at the widest, its a river impoundment), so until I get in a larger body of water (one of the other local lakes or the Puget sound a few hundred miles away) I won't be able to give any information.

I do find it interesting that you feel that 3" laps into the well are powerful enough to overcome the 11 foot long, 8 inch deep skeg she carries underneath. I agree that they may trap water in certain instances, but I just don't see enough force generation in that area (and more precisely generated by the small overlaps versus a standard well) to overcome the skeg. I can see the bow rooting in a wave and broaching if the throttle is manipulated incorrectly and the skipper isn't taking the normal precautions.

Im curious to see what project you are referring to in your post though!

E

[erster]

All that I am attempting to say is that you have a sorta displacement hull that you are pushing on plane, doing everything in its power to get the nose down. You loose a bit of lift with the bottom area lose and the placement of the well being all the way aft , boat angle allows to naturally catch water with the engine all the way aft until your boat is flat out.

Another boat in your area, the Bartender has an an actual video which has a well further foward, with some reserve lift behind the well that actually shows water spraying up inside the boat in a turn. But you really have none since you run out of hull with the placement of your well like the Simmons hulls.

I for one am only saying that you do not have to have the issue as you say of splash of water when running. You can minimize this issue and actually eliminate almost all the issues if you eliminate the lips too. IMO from witnessing well boats in many many work boats that commercial fish , not even the Simmons boats but net boats with the wells aft, and the evolution of outboards and increases of speeds with hulls intended and designed to be one style of hull being transformed into another animal, this does cause me some concern. Frankly I am no expert and am not a card carrying engineer. But try placing your arm along side of your boat the next time you are out, even the least bit of distance of your hand.

Now place that theory into the stern of your boat. At eight to ten knots of speed, no big deal. The boat, as stated on the site in its early forms was not designed to go over 20 knots. Even now the boat is only calling for 15 to 18 knots. When you add this optimum speed to seaway, you will indeed have a different attack angle to the water, furthering the notion that more water will be caught and sprayed up into your boat. The boat will indeed handle differently.


You have a different animal if indeed your speeds are as you say and you have a marginal bottom to handle this purely from my perspective. Take these posts FWIW you paid for it if you wish. If you wish not to eliminate the lips then so be it. As stated in another thread, a wide variety of folks posts on all of these type formats and feel free to disregard these posts on this issue. Do I think you can improve your boat? Yes, but then again, you know what they say about opinions. Rate these posts and file them along side of idle lip service. Out.

[Spokaloo]

Er, that post made MUCH more sense than the initial one. Thanks for the clarification.

I will attempt to get some video (once the water comes up, they have drained the lake 3 feet for flooding purposes). I will put it through some turns, run straight, flat out, chop, etc, and have my boatbuilder buddies in the boat with me shooting. Ill bring it back here and we can discuss at length!

E

[pipefitter]

In tuning a hull, eliminating such things, even though perhaps minutely beneficial, is known as a free gain. This would include ridges formed by paint at intersects etc. In a situation where a boat has a 4 stroke that typically enjoys a much broader power curve than the 2 strokes, there might me a whole other sweet spot that is being avoided at the speed that the water is tossed against the lips. Say perhaps a rough water cruising speed that is not apparent all the time. Hole shot may be another and a tiny bit of fuel economy could be another. The Ninigret may be the exception per your findings in using the boat but when a hull is tuned, the obvious friction areas are the first to go. But, if you think it will change the look you like of the stern and it isn't confronting you enough to worry about it, than by all means keep it as you like it.

[kengrome]

Anyway, should I go either of these designs (Atkins or Bolger), I would scale up the length proportionally to an 8'6" beam (keeping her trailerable), where a cuddy cabin and small windscreen would provide some more protection for the kids, especially as we want to do some overnighting.Rick, you may want to reconsider the part about "scaling up" ...

Yesterday I input Ninigret's lines into FreeShip and learned that if you do what you propose the resulting boat will be 27'8" long and 6300 pounds displacement. The original was only 22' long and 2800 pounds. Both sets of numbers are without the well so the number I'm posting here for the original's displacement is larger than specified by Atkin -- but the *relative* differences in these figures clearly illustrates the magnitude of the changes you're proposing.

If you don't load the bigger boat with enough weight to bring it down to its lines it may ride more harshly, remain flat instead of banking nicely in turns, and be more noisy in a chop. It will, however, have enough payload capacity to haul your car or truck along with you ... :)

Basically you're suggesting more than doubling the boat's overall size and displacement, which usually costs twice as much in materials and labor, and requires a bigger engine, bigger tanks, and a bigger wallet for all that extra fuel. Just something to think about before you actually start building ...

[Rico]

Thanks, Ken. I actually had factored in the change in displacement for both boats. Only the base figure of displacement for Ninigret according to the Atkin site is 2070 lbs. Without computer, change in displacement for a boat proportionally enlarged varies approximately with the cube of the waterline length. With a 2070 starting point, a 2070 pound boat at 20' LWL grows to only about 4200 at 25' long. Likewise, Blackbird grows to ballpark 4500 lbs. Both are a manageable weight for the length proposed, and well under their plastic, cousins powered by 200 hp gas-guzzlers. As well, displacements for unbuilt vessels are a "best guess" (albeit generally accurate) based on similar-type known designs and builds. Designers can't factor in lack of common sense when flat-screen TVs, dishwashers and brick pizza ovens are added. As well, the time and budget costs prohibit designers to to detailed weight analyses.

My intention in either case would be to draw the lines for each boat (I've drawn many by my own eye and love to do), make a half-hull (also an enjoyable pastime), then run the final product by a certified naval architect (I know personally) to be completely shot down (as I have only on occasion).

As for powering, that, too, I'll go to a pro for the final word. Regarding that stinky, noisy machine on the flat end at the back that pushes the whole wood-and paint contraption, well getting fast to where I'm going isn't essential. I don't intend to loosen the family's fillings by installing a 6-foot tall black monolithic drive at the stern that ensures we get the best anchorage before everyone else. I've been a sailor since 1965 - getting anywhere faster than 6 knots is mach speed for me. As for "needing the power to get out of trouble if the wind comes up" - well being stuck in a time warp, I've not done too bad with just a compass and a chart for over 40 years, paying attention to the weather reports, and staying out of bad weather. I'm trying to teach my kids some common sense seamanship without extra power and gadgetry. That being said, the other day I was aboard a sweet Grand Banks woodie with auto helm and some pretty slick electronics. And man she can fly at 8 knots or so... hmmmm...

:rolleyes: