I've noticed in WoodenBoat's study plans, you don't see many designs for double-ended cruisers over 25 ft. There is of course "Annie" and "Grey Seal". Given the sea-kindliness of the design it seems there would be more offerings from the architects. Any thoughts?
Lots of double enders in all sizes. See Robert Perry, William Garden, Joel White William Atkin, LFH, on and on.
I may get royally flamed for this...
I don't believe that double-enders are really more seaworthy than other moderate transom shapes. Their real problem is a lack of reserve buoyancy. Their big advantage, and the reason why Colin Archer and others used them for pilot boats, is the reduced liklihood of serious damage when leaving the side of a pier or ship. The lack of stern "quarters" allows the vessel to turn and not have contact.
A short (or no) overhang flat transom like those on H-28's, 12 1/2's, etc. really is better.
(Not that it matters, but I have three double-enders (28', and 2-17'ers...)
Trying to be reasonable
Paul, although I'm far from an expert, I suspect you're right about seaworthiness, at least in the sort of conditions I hope never to sail in. The pointy stern makes little difference when the design is taken as a whole - A Colin Archer redningskoite (sp?) is much more seaworthy than a late '70s IOR boat (to pick a silly example), but that's not because it's a double-ender. I'd say the major advantage is aesthetic - see almost any design by Albert Strange for an exquisite example, and of course LFH's Rozinante.
[This message has been edited by Keith Wilson (edited 07-28-2000).]
Another fine advantage of the double-ender, of course, is ease of building. Eliminating the transom eliminates many headaches.--Dan
Senior Member
The library at the Norwegian Maritime Museum, http://www.museumsnett.no/nsm/htmldo.../index_gb.html , has several of Colin Archer's original plans, and restorations of these. Full scale photocopies are sold at a very reasonable price, I believe they charge ca. $15 /sheet. Apart from the plans for redningsskøyte #1 "Colin Archer", 44ft, there are several plans for pilot's boats from 30 - 40+ feet, and yachts of the same size available.
The museum says nothing about the right to construct a boat from plans purchased from them, but I believe you're totally free to do so. At least you don't have to sign any release forms saying that you don't have the right to do so.
The level of detail is sparse, to say the least, compared to modern standards. No offsets are given, so you'll have to develop the offset tables yourself. There are also very few diagonals given, and they seldom intersect at the WLs.
Of course, taking measurements off a paper photpcopy is seldom encouraged in this forum or elsewhere. Perhaps it's possible to get mylar copies, but you'll still have the error of the photocopy lens to deal with. I have, however, developed a table of offsets for one of the pilot's boats, the famous "Garibaldi". I found that the photocopy error which may have been introduced was well within the general measurement error, and the total error would probably not exceed +/- 15mm on the beam.
The plans are also somewhat confusing, in that is seems that while length, beam and draught is given in feet on the plans, the plans were developed to a metric scale. All scantlings are in feet and inches, while mass is metric. Original scantlings seem to be available only for the redningsskøyte, and only in Norwegian but I'd be happy to translate and post them here if anyone is interested.
The original general arrangement plans are usually just that, very general. They are also pretty faded and almost impossible to make out. But you'd probably want a more modern cabin arrangement anyways. There is a set of new arrangement plans available, taken off the RS1 Colin Archer. These are pretty good and may be purchased for the same price as the other drawings. This set is not good for taking measurements, however. For the RS1 I'd recommend both sets of plans that the museum has available.
The rigging plans are also very sparse in detail, so you'd probably have to get these from elsewhere. I know that Jeff Lane, of the "Condemned Norwegian Fishing Boats" thread works as a consultant in this field. He may also have fully developed plans available, or at least be able to point you in the right direction, if you don't want to work off the somewhat incomplete original plans.
BTW, Mr. Archer developed his plans according to some wave-theory thing developed by some Englishman (boy, am I vague on this?). I believe one of the merits of the pointed stern is that it will let an overtaking wave pass more easily under the boat instead of accellerating it down the wave and possibly broaching. Where's the Colin Archer Society when you need them?????
Could that Englishman have been Rear-Admiral Alfred Turner and his metacentric shelf theory of hull balance, as practiced by another Englishman, T. Harrison Butler in his yacht designs?
www
Senior Member
Øyvind Snibsøer, with a complete lack of Norwegian, I must ask how do you pronounce your name?
Senior Member
I've always thought that about half of what has been written for and against double enders, pointy sterners, transom sterns, counters, retros and whatnot was mostly irrelevant.
There's wonderful and miserable examples of everything. Pete Culler could draw a pretty huge barn door stern that worked nicely. The Wianno Sr has a pretty overhang and tucked up transom and still drags half the Sound behind. LFH designed Landfall as a 'double ender' and then cut off the stern to fit a rating rule.
It's the exit at the waterline that matters most, with general bouyancy mattering more or less depending on use. Big broad bearings aft, like on the C scows or on modern Round Alone death sleds, are great for planing speed. Most displacement boats are best with nice mostly symetrical waterlines, maybe a slightly aft raking center as she heels but nothing too extreme, maybe more prismatic (short version, total displacemental sharpness) in bow than stern but still, moderate.
All that looks pretty double ended to the waterline. What you do from there up has more to do with aesthetics, desired accomodation, and designer's tradition than any immutable law of the sea.
That's my $0.02 and change. But then, Granna and Leeward are both pointy at both ends so what do I know?
Senior Member
Andrew,
I'm not surprised that you're having a tough time with pronouncing my name. While my first name is a pretty common male name in Norway, my surname is very uncommon, and most Norwegians have a problem with it, too.
The Norw. and Danish alphabets have three extra letters, Æ/æ, Ø/ø and Å/å. They may be transcribed in 27-letter alphabets as "ae", "oe" and "aa".
The Ø is pronounced like the "i" in "sir". The ending "d" is usually dumb in Norwegian.
My surname is more of a problem. It was probably formed when some forefather in the 18th or 19th century decided to do a little "name decoration". The "d" in "Snibsøer" is pronounced like a "p", the "ø" as in "sir" and the "e" is dumb. It was probably originally spelled "Snipsøyr", which is a place on the Norwegian NW coast in the region of Sunnmøre. And one of my forefathers was presumably the captain of a sailing ship which traded on the Far East, so at least it's got a little to do with wooden boats
Senior Member
So something like iven as in given and snip-sir
Senior Member
In a very biased opinion, I will put in a plug for Wm. Gardens 30' "Teal" (in his Yacht designs II book). In getting to know my sloop Victoria, I have been amazed at her comfort, seakindliness, roominess, and speed. As for the advantages of double ender vs. transom stern, I only know that when I've put her stern to meet a huge square ship wake, she rose over it with aplomb and control. I have nothing to compare it with, but I know this stern works well. The real joy of course is that this lady has a backside that will make you smile.
Jamie
Excuse me, but I just noticed the "Double-Ender" entry, and read the replys.
I just can't resist:
To begin with, Scott Russel was the Englishman whose "Wave Line Theory" Colin Archer read, believed part of, and revised as he felt necessary. That theory, and Russels's, mainly go on the presumption that since a moving vessel makes a bow and a stern wave, it would allow the vessel to move more easily if the volumes of the ends corresponded to the increased water pressure due to the wave buildup along the hull at the ends; in other words, make the vessel fit the hills and holes in the water that vessel itself causes by its movement. This makes sense to me, even in the year 2000, but more impressive is that boats designed to comply with the theory do move slightly faster, and with less horsepower expended while moving the same displacement than their non-wave form theory sisters. I leave the tank-testing of John Hannah's "Caroll" and the design that later became the "Tahiti" ketch hulls, against comparable Archer hulls, to others. I know it works, and that's good enough for me. My own North Sea Fisherman, built in 1917 in Risor, Norway, utilizes the same principle, as do most of the boats of the period built on the South Coast of Norway.
To those who say there is no difference in seaworthiness provided by the double-ended shape, I can only say that I very much doubt whether they have experienced a real North Sea storm in such a vessel, when the waves are vertical, breaking, and from three directions at once. Then it isn't just how the vessel is shaped to the waterline, because the effective waterline is often nearer the deck than where is usually is. The North Sea is a place like no other, at such a time, and anyone who has seen it like that would know it again. The double-enders were shaped to try to live in those conditions, and live they usually do. Many other designs often do not. That such a stern better facilitates leaving the side of a larger vessel, or a quay, is a spinoff. The real reason for the shape is seaworthiness, and I maintain that the sort of boat LFH and the others designed has little to do with that shape, except that both are at least somewhat pointed at both ends. I think William Atkin and William Garden came the closest, with"Eric", the two "Bullfrog"s and "Seal". The others, in my opinion, aren't very close in concept.
It isn't just the shape that makes the difference, but the blend of shape, displacement, and disposition of weight both vertically and longitudinally that make similar vessels differ. Archer, like everyone else, designed boats for particular jobs, and with very different priorities. His pilot boats would have been a bit more seaworthy for the average cruising sailor had they been, on the average, a little fuller in the stern. They were not intended to be cruising boats for the average cruising sailor. They were intended to be fairly seaworthy, but for professionals whose livelihood depended upon getting to the ship to be piloted first, before the other pilots beat them to it.
And get there first they very often did, making them very successful pilot boats, and safe enough, usually, in the hands of professionals. The obvious morale is, " If you want a good cruising boat, design a boat to do that. If you want something else, design that. Don't generalize about a shape, without talking about the other factors involved with that shape, and don't expect shape alone to solve the seaworthiness problem." I also maintain that the double-ended shape, be it full enough where it counts, and fine enough where that counts, when coupled with the correct amount of correctly-located weight and total displacement, is the best solution to the seaworthiness problem, in very severe conditions.
Those who say that double-enders lack volume in the ends haven't really experienced a North Sea fisherman---my boat, with a deck length of 49 1/4', must have eighteen tons of just ballast, distributed well strung-out, also toward the ends, just to keep her from pitching one off the foredeck in a head sea. Volume she has, in the freeboard of the ends, much more than most, and yet is quite fine underwater. For her 45-ton displacement, she is remarkably easily driven. Archer concentrated the ballast of his Redningskoytes toward the center of buoyancy, and in the keel, so that they would pitch unmercifully in ultimate conditions, and have great righting moment, but keep their decks as free of green water as possible. That's great for the North of Norway in the winter, but very tiring for the usually small crew of a cruising sailboat. Again, design the boat for the job. And trust a heavy, well-designed double-ender, when the sea becomes really windy and lumpy. They survive, as do their crews. I have owned two of them, for a total of over forty years, 32' and 49+' on deck, mostly in the North Sea but also in the Caribbean and Eastern U.S., and found the above to be true when it really counted, every time.
Cheers, Jeff Lane
Junior Member
Re: Double-enders
I am considering my first double ender for my next boat because of my experience with yawing in a following sea--this even just on the Chesapeake in 25 knots. My last boat was a Cape Dory-30 and I found the yaw annoying. W.I.B. Crealock claimed great reviews of his Pacific Seacrafts (double-enders) in these conditions. I may have missed this discussed here; anyone else here have input on the matter?Originally Posted by Jeff Lane
I'm considering Atkin's Economy Jane as my first building project. My gut reasoning is that I've never seen a fish with a squared-off back end. Shouldn't I play by the ocean's rules if I'm on the ocean?
.
Re: Double-enders
Have you ever seen a fish out of water?
Hopefully the "back end" of your boat is out of the water, and if it isn't you would like to have the most bouyancy you can get.
I also like double ended boats, but it is an aesthetic call.
This guy is on the surface most of his life, Half out of the water.
Thank you, Oyyvind and Jeff. Fascinating.
Archibald Scott Russell, one of the true pioneers of scientific naval architecure, following Frederik Af Chapman, whose books he knew, had the misfortune to win the contract to build the "Great Eastern" for I.K. Brunel, who was the sort of customer that all boatbuilders dread, constantly making changes and refusing to pay for them as extras, while the ship was wholly innovative anyway. Brunel died and Scott Russell went bankrupt, having lost the media campaign, so that he went down to history as the villain of the piece. The torch was picked up by J.A. Froude, Brunel's assistant, who really established scientific naval architecture. Archer would have been familiar with his work as well as Scott Russell's.
I agree with Jeff's description of the motion of Colin Archer's redningskoites (sp?); they have a great and well deserved reputation for causing "loss of appetite" in their crews! Archer's yachts - of which a very famous example is preserved in Ireland - Erskine Childers' "Asgard" - are a very different shape, not double ended.
Whether the "Archer" redningskoite type works in smaller sizes is a difficult question; you can't really scale designs up or down much. I agree that Atkin came close with his "Eric" design, best known, I think, in the form of Robin Knox-Johnson's "Suhaili".
No-one has yet mentioned the quite relevant point that, in climates less benign, from a wooden boat point of view, than Norway, these boats are a maintenance nightmare.
I would cautiously suggest that, if you don't intend to use the boat as a sailing lifeboat there may be better candidates, wonderful as the Archer boats are.
Ah, yes, maintenance of a heavily-built wooden boat in the tropics. It can be done, but requires the use of modern materials, and the clearing of some areas of hull ceiling for ventilation.
My own vessel 'Gladhval" is one of very few that I know of to spend a fairly long (8 1/2 years) time in the tropics (Caribbean, Puerto Rico) and sail away in better shape than she came there in, or indeed, to sail away at all. The main reason is that the first thing I did after purchasing the boat in 1963 in Oslo, Norway, was to feed the interior hull ceiling to the wood-burning stove, which kept us warm. My reasoning was that we owned the strongest type of boat I had ever seen anyway, that she obviously needed more ventilation to the massive framing and stanchion ends, that there is only one really good way to keep track of what is going on in structure, and that is to look at it, and fairly often, and that I intended to use her much more carefully than any of the fishermen in her long career had done. When we got to the Caribbean some years later, I took out all the topside seam putty, caulked as necessary, primed the seams and oakum with highly-thinned epoxy resin (water-like consistancy), and shot in 72 tubes of polysulphide in place of the putty. I provided grooved-seam appearance as well, as that looks more or less the same regardless of expansion or contraction in the 2" oak planking. Having done that, the fresh water that would have rotted the hull in the tropics just didn't get in any longer, as the polysulphide was flexible enough to counteract that. Nowadays I use polyeurethane, but only in painted hulls. That wasn't, and isn't, the nightmare some people think it to be. It certainly is, however, if one relies on traditional materials. That is doomed to failure, and I believe that an answer to the traditionalists who condemn my methods as either "unconventional" or "untraditional", is that Colin Archer himself was an innovator who certainly would have used epoxy, polyeurethane and the rest of it had he had the opportunity. Also, a trouble-free vessel is a real blessing, and to Hell with tradition if it gets in the way of practics. I have enough work at best, and don't need unneceessary additional maintenance. I don't own a floating museum, just an effective cruising boat. We can talk about decks later, if anyone is interested.
Jeff Lane
Thank you, Jeff. I think many people are inhibted from removing the ceiling by the thought that it is somehow "structurally essential"; I was interested that you did it so sucessfully. I will remember the polysuphide/polyurethane in seams trick; I used Jeffreys Seamflex, with the same idea in mind, and it did not work, because the heat melts it and it sags out of the seam.
Wooden decks, covering boards, stanchions = Coelan, if you can afford it; red lead if not. I saw the 1903 Nicholson Big Class yacht MERRYMAID when she had just been hauled out of a mud berth in Tollesbury after decades as a houseboat; her former owners had laid 3/4" ply over her pine decks and used many coats of red lead; she was fine.
Senior Member
Actually, I'll bet the "real" reason double enders evolved were not for the sea keeping qualities at all, but mainly because it is an easier form to make when all you have to work with are tree limbs and twine. The fact that they floated and got their passengers back proliferated the design. If they didn't get back they wouldn't have been able to pass the knowledge to the next generation.
As I expected to get flamed I can't complain that I did! However, a couple of the comments need a reply!
The "Wave Line Theory" addressed speed issues of waves vs ships. The problem with this theory when applied to ships is that it ignores the water's viscosity and hence the skin friction effects. Because of this the impact of boundary layer build-up is ignored. To reduce resistance at higher speeds more volume needs to be aft of midships. Lots of tank tests have proven this. At lower speeds it is not that important.
Although I've not sailed in the North Sea, I have sailed with Norwegian fisherman off the Northern California coast in conditions they said were equal to any they had seen. I've sailed in an Atkin "Thistle", which has many traits of the Archer boats, and a Chapelle schooner. The schooner was as seaworthy.
Apart from construction, another advantage of the double-ender is beaching in surf; the Block Island cow horn is an example.
As many others have pointed out, unless you are planning on something unique in your cruise, other characteristics will take priority; the differences in seaworthiness are just not significant.
To Don Maurer, I would say that if he had studied the shapes and the planking of the Oseberg and Gokstad viking ships, (admittedly
very refined specimens of their very different types, but still far over a thousand years old), he would have seen that they were anything but easy to build. The Nydam boat of maybe 600 years earlier may have qualified a little better, but not an awful lot. Those people built those boats not because they were easy to build, but because their qualities allowed them to terrorize even their distant cross-ocean neighbors almost at will. The modern Nordlands femboring, roughly 45' long and used until about 1920 for fishing in Vestfjord, North of Lofoten on the West Coast of Norway, isn't really much different than a viking longship, and both of them are extremely high-performance sailboats on a beam reach and lower. They also point surprisingly high, in the hands of experts, and the vikings were definitely experts.
I would refer Mr. Maurer to the May 2000 issue of "National Geographic" magazine's description of fighting ships like the Gokstad ship: ..."Beside me sat Ole Crumlin-Pedersen, a naval architect and Denmark's premier excavator of old ships, `A modern yacht is stiff---it will bang on the waves," he said, `but a Viking ship glides through the waves because the energy of the waves is absorbed in her structure. She's so well balanced you can steer her with your little finger. She's so beautiful you can keep her in your living room.' " ---I don't think these vessels quite fit the primative description of their derivation that you assign them, Don. If their distant ancestors did, it was an unrememberably long time ago. These have been different for millinia.
Well, Mr. Miller:
1. We were talking about Colin Archer-type double enders. All that boundary-layer stuff is important, yes, but not very important at the speeds under about eight knots or so, which most cruising boats qualify for. More important for a more voluminous afterbody is the effect of a following sea, but I've said that above.
2. Again, neither yourself nor your fishermen have been caught in a North Sea Storm. That place is just amazing, for the reasons that (1) At least three weather systems are usually working in it at the same time, in spite of its roughly 350 x 700 nautical mile size, and (2) Because it is very shallow in some areas and fairly deep in other, adjacent ones. This makes for very, very steep wave buildup, and, as I said before, usually three directions at once. Remember the reasons for the Fastnet tragedies in 1979?
3. Beaching qualities, like the (early) Block Islanders? Norway hasn't many beaches, at all. And if you were to try to beach a 44' to 49' double-ender drawing from 7' to more than 9', you wouldn't do it more than once with the same boat. There has not been that tradition in Norway since Colin Archer revised the admittedly beachable pilot boats from the Hvaler region of the Oslofjord to be the more seaworthy deep-sea pilot, rescue, pleasure and fishing vessels that we are hopefully still talking about. Viking ships, yes. Colin Archer types? Sorry, definitely not beachable. Another kind of double-ender, like I said to start with. That's why fishermen and pilots were so reticent to buy his boats when they first came out---they were so very different from what they were used to.
4. "As many others have pointed out,---". Oh, all right, let's talk about those "Other Qualities". A cruising boat is a home afloat, and volume is a luxury. The fat double-ender, with it's sharp, deep underbody, gives the best volume for sailing ability for any hull shape, bar none. I've lived on two of them for a total of 22 years or so, and have compared them with other boats of the same length for a lot longer than that. None better for liveaboard quality of life, either volumewise, or, (properly ballasted, and properly sailed!), steadier in a seaway. One just has to put enough of the right things, like ballast, total displacement, and sail area, in the right places. Most people, including the "Westsail" company, don't, or didn't.
Again, this hull shape gives the best volume value for length, and length is what you pay for when you haul out, go through a canal, pay harbor dues, etc.
With an easily-driven (to hull speed) hull that has the maximum possible waterline length for its deck length, the highest displacement speeds for the deck length are inherent.
Tell me, please, other than those above, what are those "Other Qualities" of a good cruising boat to which you are referring? Let's talk about those, too.
Respectfully, Jeff Lane
Mr. Lane has a number of interesting opinions which are enjoyable to debate. I will agree with him that building a double-ender can be as easy or difficult as other craft. It's the details that matter.
I will take exception on some other points. The "boundary layer stuff" is important for a 40-footer at speeds above about 3 knots, and it determines the ability of a hull to get up to "hull speed" (as discussed in other threads). As one who has reviewed a lot of tank test and VPP data (and sailed lots of boats, including a Viking replica) I can assure you that the ability to easily get up to hull speed has more to do with sail area and displacement/length ratio than hull shape. In fact, the English Pilot Cutters can get to and exceed hull speed easier for a given displacement than a double-ender.
For value in volume (and length and construction costs) you can't beat a scow schooner. Admittedly, although they have made successful trips from California to Tahitti, they are not quick or particularly seaworthy.However, they will go through canals and coastal cruise just fine.
Yes, my Norwegian fisherman friends have been in many North Sea storms.
My comment about beachable qualities was because that is one area where double-enders excel, not that you couldn't beach an Archer-type double-ender. (I guess you could; once.)
The "other important qualities" in a cruising boat have been discussed in many threads. Bottom line; aesthetics, a dry bunk, a way to cook food, a head.
It looks like we've reached an impasse! My final comment will be, "I love my three double-enders, but not because they are the most seaworthy shapes possible. For that, I'll take a Grand Banks fishing schooner or a Channel Cutter!"
Dear Mr. Miller,
The main point I have been trying to make, (although I certainly admit to not being very good at it, as I have spoken mainly in defense of, and in response to specific comments about, the double-ended, Colin Archer-TYPE cruising boat), is that this particular type of boat is, in my thoroughly biased opinion, the best all-around type for a cruising boat. These vessels, when correctly trimmed in every aspect of sail area, ballast, total displacement/length, and all the rest of it, have certainly at least comparable sailing qualities for length to any other cruising vessel, including the famous Bristol Channel Pilot Cutters, (of whose Owner's Association I am an associate member, and of which, as a class, I hold great admiration). That, in addition to those sailing qualities, they also possess enormous volume for length, (read that liveability), as well as seaworthiness, make them, (still in my opinion), the best all-around cruising boat type.
I'm a little puzzled by your mentioning the scow schooner's volume---I thought we were talking about cruising boats. Commercial barges have even more volume than scow schooners for length, and are even less qualified as cruising sailboats, I would guess.)
Archer, and others like him, used his and Archibald Scott Russell's "Wave Form Theory" to design boats that are, for their length and displacement, very easily driven, in my experience. Why they are so interests me some, but less than that they are. Boundary layers (and theories) may come or go---fine. This shape, and other, very similar shapes, works surprisingly well for speed with little effort, for their length and their displacement. That's good enough for me.
There are many of these vessels which have had lesser qualities in one direction or another, invariably because of flaws in one or another of the features of their design. But there are many that have been superb. One of the earliest to become noteworthy in a cruising sense must certainly be Ralph Stock's "Oger", the vessel in his well-known book, "The Cruise Of The Dream Ship", (William Heinemann Ltd., 1921). Among his comments in the closing pages of the book, in a chapter entitled, "Advice To Dreamers", is this paragraph:
"The Dream Ship---The dream ship is my idea of the ideal ocean cruiser to be handled by a crew of three. That is why I bought her, and she cost (second hand) 300 pounds Sterling, or about $1500.-. She was designed as a North Sea pilot cutter by the late Colin Archer, who also designed the "Fram" for Nansen, and was the originator of this type of vessel. She was built at Porsgrund, Norway, in 1908, and I reduced her canvas to make for easy handling by a small and light-weight crew. For this reason she was slow going to windward, but I would not have had her otherwise, for one cannot have EVERYTHING---there is bound to be a compromise somewhere---and one does not expect to go round the world "on a wind." "
He then suggests to prospective cruising people that they have such a boat built in either Norway or in Denmark, "---(where her timbers could be built of Danish oak), and have her built. For this particular type of boat, Scandinavia cannot be equalled, let alone beaten. But in these days, building boats is a pastime for millionaires only.
From this giddy pinnacle of affluence we fall to the next best thing, which is a secon-hand boat as like the dream ship in seaworthiness and handiness as it is possible to procure, and that is what I have been searching for ever since the dream cruise ended. There are no more pilot boats of the dream-ship type being built in Norway. Steam has dethroned them, and those still in use are either too old to buy or too invaluable to sell. So we are reduced to the inevitabvle compromise, and personally, I think I have found it in an English, Bristol Channel Pilot cutter, for which I paid 450 pounds, or, at par, about $2,250.-.
Yes, I have another dream ship. ---."
Interesting that he settled, after trying to find another Colin Archer, upon a Bristol Channel Pilot Cutter. Of course they are good boats too, Mr. Miller.
But they are grossly smaller for their length. Your "Bottom Line" leaves a lot to be desired by the average cruising family. I would suggest that, in order of priority, (1) Safety, (2) Sailing Efficiency, (3) Comfort, and (4) Esthetics
would be a more fitting choice for the average cruiser. As "There ain't no accountin' for taste", Esthetics is unarguable.
It is certainly true that, being of heavy displacement, these vessels do not accelerate quickly. (My own has a length/displacement ratio of somewhere around 600). But they are very easily driven by little wind or engine power to hull speed, and lack of acceleration is rarely a real problem, while the ability to carry on through a meeting head sea without losing much speed allows them to hold a very good average speed in that situation. For all-around safe cruising, for little crew, (as most families are), for great liveaboard comfort, unbeatable, in my opinion. The defense rests.
Cheers, Jeff Lane
Senior Member
Re: Double-enders
most interesting, i have designed a 10mt colin archer, if i built her what might she be worth in norway
Try sailing an International 210 in heavy air and see for yourself how it feels.
This sounds like those Ford vs Chevy arguments I remember from high school. Working class kids.... My sons would find that sort of discussion baffling.
Senior Member
Just in case anyone feels like learning more about the particular double-enders from Mr. Archer, here's finally a book about him and his boats that's not out of print from the Central Queensland University Press. http://cqupress.cqu.edu.au/cgi-bin/goHere2.cgi
Select "Magic Ships" in the combo-box below Current Titles. I'm still waiting for the delivery of my copy, so I'm not able to offer an opinion on how good it is. Seems promising, though.
[This message has been edited by Øyvind Snibsøer (edited 08-08-2000).]
Senior Member
This discussion of double enders reminds me of similar discussions of bowsprit v. no bowsprit. LF Herreshoff said, "While some people dislike a bowsprit, it is a fact that those who were brought up with them are very fond of them,...". Similarly, I have become very fond of both bowsprits and double enders, as RARUS has one of each. My last boat had a nice transom, but it was impossible to inspect, got little ventilation, and deteriorated. I believe that if pointy sterns made boats go faster, we would have seen some of them racing for the America's Cup. I can't tell if the sharp stern enhances rough water handling, as I have always gotten to a harbor before it gets really rough. But I do like not worrying if the transom is getting enough ventilation, or if it's deteriorating. And if I ever build a boat, it very well may be double-ended because it is easier to build and maintain.
Junior Member
For years I have heard much about double enders, relative merits and deficencies. I just have to throw the old saw back into the kerf, Boats are bought by the pound , usually by money that came easily, I don't think too many worked as hard as a boat builder to make their money, so most got what they were paying for.
Senior Member
I reckon double-enders works just fine. Every boat I've ever seen had two. P'raps it's 'cause 2 is the only even prime number. But I could be wrong.
Senior Member #4667
I think there are double-enders and then there are double-enders (omitting Kermit's double-entendre).
I can't think of an easy way to describe this, but I think more rounded sterns are more seaworthy then those that have a gentler curve that comes to a point - as in a canoe stern. The sterns I like are much plumper and almost apple cheeked (please, no cracks from the peanut gallary
Can anyone direct me to more info on Atkin's "Eric" design? I've long admired the "Suhaili", but didn't know who designed her or what her 'plan name' was.
If you don't think for yourself, someone else will do it for you!
Senior Member #4667
Ah, I found some info on the Atkin "Eric Junior" (25' double-ender) and other boats at http://www.boat-links.com/Ideal/XXXIII.html
Of the boats on that page, "Tide's End" has the (I think of it as slack) pointy canoe stern more so then "Eric Junior", which, alas seems to have it too to a lesser extent.
I thought "Suhaili" was a yawl or ketch?
If you don't think for yourself, someone else will do it for you!
Senior Member
For beautiful double enders one need look no further than Wm.Fife.The most beatiful of all Latifa.Suhaili just rebuilt here in Falmouth is I think a ketch.
Senior Member
For sheer good looks, a boat should be pointed on both ends and fly four sided sails on more than one mast!
Not that other boats can't be good looking, but that seems to be a winning combination in my book.
Ron
Junior Member
for Meerkat, and others the plans are available from Pat Atkin. I have to say that if you get ahold of Robin Knox-Johnston's "A World of My Own" and carefully peruse the pictures you will find that the interior arangement is that of the "Dragon" An older copy of the book had a very good picture of Suhali on the hard again to my eye a Dragon.
Senior Member #4667
I think, based on further research, that the 25' "Eric Junior" is a smaller version of the 34' ketch "Eric" that is Suhailli's design.
Here's a DE with a nice stern [img]smile.gif[/img] http://media5.hypernet.com/ubb/ultim...c;f=2;t=001696
Scroll down for pics
If you don't think for yourself, someone else will do it for you!
Senior Member #4667
This is the kind of double-ender stern I like and think is seaworthy:
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-21404/boat...15drawA4sv.gif
If you don't think for yourself, someone else will do it for you!
Senior Member #4667
Beginning to have some serious lustage for one of Axel H. Gushatsson's double-enders, plan #42 "Koster".
8,23m x 2,80m x 1,25m, deplacement 4,55 kbm, järnköl 1800kg. (27'x9'x4' rounded-off)
Anyone know what "kbm" and "järnköl" mean?
I wonder what he defines as a "local motor sailor"? Looks like a capable blue water boat to me. It would be perfect if it was a cutter and the main was 4-cornered [img]smile.gif[/img]
If you don't think for yourself, someone else will do it for you!
Been around a while now..
Double ended designs seem to always make their way to the top of my wish list. I just like the way they look. I wish there were more plans for canoe yawls in the 18 to 21 foot range (I simply don't live in a place where a big boat is practicle.......trailer sailer for us!)
I love the split rigged double ended designs. Garden's Eel gets me everytime I cast an eye on the drawing. Oughtred's double enders pretty much do the same to me. Wish I could swing the build of Grey Seal, 'specially if I could convince Iain to design a yawl rig)
I'm sure that there are more designs, maybe even plans out there for small canoe sterned boats. Anybody know of any. David Ryder Turner had a design in WB (24 or 25 feet) a few years back.
Member
Re: Double-enders
Double ended designs seem to always make their way to the top of my wish list. I just like the way they look. I wish there were more plans for canoe yawls in the 18 to 21 foot range (I simply don't live in a place where a big boat is practicle.......trailer sailer for us!)
I love the split rigged double ended designs. Garden's Eel gets me everytime I cast an eye on the drawing. Oughtred's double enders pretty much do the same to me. Wish I could swing the build of Grey Seal, 'specially if I could convince Iain to design a yawl rig
I'm sure that there are more designs, maybe even plans out there for small canoe sterned boats. Anybody know of any. David Ryder Turner had a design in WB (24 or 25 feet) a few years back.
Member
Re: Double-enders
Help....!!......Trying to post pic of my wee double ender but cant get the link from photobucket to work..Anybody have any tips??
Cheers
Harry
Landlocked in Berlin
Re: Double-enders
I have been collecting more pictures of wooden working boats, this time in Italy: the little canoe-sterned rowboats used by fishermen on the Amalfi coast.
(somehow the direct picture link won't work)
See: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...9&l=5e09b16b27
Actually most have an outboard bracket and are only rowed (rower standing up facing forward) whole tending the fishtraps or nets.
Gernot H.
Last edited by 62816inBerlin; 05-17-2010 at 04:13 PM. Reason: Attempt to insert image
Banned
Re: Double-enders
I have been collecting more pictures of wooden working boats, this time in Italy: the little canoe-sterned rowboats used by fishermen on the Amalfi coast.
See: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...9&l=5e09b16b27
Actually most have an outboard bracket and are only rowed (rower standing up facing forward) whole tending the fishtraps or nets.
Gernot H.
I was lucky enough to see the Amalfi Coast waaaay back in '81 whilst riding the Nimitz. Spent a good deal of time in Maori, right down the Amalfi Way from the town of Amalfi.
A skipper of such a little boat grabbed my boots which contained my wallet and half a month's pay then took the time and trouble to track me down and make sure I got them back. The man also refused a gratuity. All of the fishermen I met in that region seemed like solid folks.
Connecticut Yankee
Re: Double-enders
///
Steve Martinsen
Member
Re: Double-enders
Landlocked in Berlin
Re: Double-enders
BTW ... looking at my pictures of beach-launched fishing craft, I discover many "double-ended" designs.
Viking long-ships were kinda double-ended ...
There must be some sort of evolutional reason? Surely not just aesthetics. For one, isn't it easier to make a watertight stem/keel/planking joint than a flat or curved stern of separate planks?
Gernot H.
Senior Member
Re: Double-enders
Venus Ketch ,34', Paul Johnson design,built by me in '83. Strip planked Mt St helens fir,100 gallons sys.3.Cruised 60,000 miles.
Boat Designer
"Suhaili" is an Eric, she was built of hardwood(teak?) by Robin Knox-Johnston and his brother in Bombay about 1964. Overall length is 32'1", DWL is 27'6", beam 11', and draft 5'. Design displacement is 19,500 lbs. She was built with the "tall" marconi ketch rig of 726 sq. ft. total. In 1968 Knox-Johnston won the Sunday-Times round the world race in her, 30,000 miles in 313 days, non-stop. Average speed just under 4 knots!
Bill Atkin had (at least) two separate families of double enders. The first is the Eric/Thistle series with a beam/length of about .34. The other family are Ingrid/Erin/Eric Jr. These are much finer lined hulls, with a beam/length ratio of about .302.
They are all nice boats, but the fine lined Ingrid is the nicest of the bunch.
All the best, Tad.
___________________________________
Tad
cogge ketch Blackfish
cat ketch Ratty
http://www.tadroberts.ca
http://blog.tadroberts.ca/
http://www.passagemakerlite.com
Senior Member
Re: Double-enders
I know this is a older thread but very good discussion.
Any opinions as to why Atkin designed the Thistle rig after the Eric Ketch? Is it that the preference of one rigging is so compelling as to design anew? Or, why didn't Atkin just add another 'rigging option' to the Eric. From what I can see, the Thistle has a flush deck, but I can't find information about Eric's deck.
Just a bit confusing for me.
FWIW, you can find my completed Lynaes Dinghy loft here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/headsqu...7613618925738/
regards,
Patrick
Garland
Just a few ideas:
Jay Benford - 18' Iota, Canoe Yawl
http://wwnet.fi/corebros/Lota18.html
pricelist:
http://www.liveaboard.com/bdg.html
C.G. Davis - 21' 8" Jenny Wren, traditional canoe sterned yawl
Weston Farmer developed hull lines, offset table, construction plan,
scantlings and presents them in his book "From My Old Boat Shop".
William and John Atkin - 21' Economy Jane, V bottom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boatde...conomy%20Jane/
Plans available at:
http://www.by-the-sea.com/atkin&co/
S.S. Rabl - 22' Mocking Bird Jr., V bottom
Plans in his book "Boatbuilding in Your Own Backyard".
Reuel Parker - 19' 6" Maryland Crabbing Skiff, Flat bottom
Plans in his book "The Sharpie Book".
Mat
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
