Designing a 7 ton cutter

[Peter Vella]

The process of designing a catboat lead me into doing alot of research on boat design rather than just boat building which I had already been researching for a while, and the advise of people on this forum was very helpful. Well, I have decided not to build the catboat, mainly due to contraints of time and money for what I would have at the end of it. I think for what I intended to use the catboat for, ie; daysailing, creek crawling and extended coastal trips, could be served more efficiently with an open boat of similar length (15-20ft) but of much lighter displacement, and a tent for pitching on the beach overnight and/or a boom tent. The main thing I would loose would be having a galley and the ability to carry more supplies.

The original idea for building a catboat of the size I was designing was to have my first build being something in size between a small open boat and the heavy displacement offshore boat that I want to build to liveaboard. I have been looking at designs such as the larger Paul Gartside cutters with a long term liveaboard in mind, but it seemed a good idea to build something smaller first. Well, after working out the costs involved, it makes more sense now to build something light, quick to build and cheap for messing around in and put the money and effort that I would be spending on the catboat build towards building the big boat.

Prehaps against my better judgement I have taken what I learnt from the catboat design process and had a crack at designing the Big Boat, a offshore capable cutter with standing headroom but still small enough to be single handed and to be sculled (it will almost certainly be engineless):

LOD: 9.85m (32')
Beam: 2.9m (9'6")
Draught: 1.55m (5'1")
Displacement: 7140kg (15700lb)

[wizbang 13]

another victim of " the romance of enginlessness"

[Bram V]

Glorious, isn't it, quite a large boat, silently gliding by.

I do wonder however if the wetted area isn't too large to scull efficiently? With ballast and a 10m ship, you'll also need a lot of time to get it up to any speed.

[PeterSibley]

I like her, I'm not qualified to pass a judgment either way but from a quick appraisal , very nice!

[Peter Vella]

The sculling oar would be for manouvering it in anchorages and tight, sheltered places, what sailors with engines end up using their engines for 99% of the time, the rest of the time it sits there taking up space and creating drag with it's prop. I wouldn't be able to get into many habours on an outgoing tide, but it's no big deal. I can hove to and wait.

Its more than just 'romance' or a desire to save money and space in this case. The hull shape I have makes it difficult to have an inboard engine without the propshaft being at a very inefficient angle, or the engine being practically in the middle of the cabin with a long bore through the deadwood for the shaft.

[PeterSibley]

Plan for a yuhlo rather than a sculling oar, much more efficient.

[wizbang 13]

99%?
It's not just entering harbor, it is being stuck for days 20 or 30 miles behind an island, getting out of the way of ships,getting somewhere in an emergency,going upwind in square waves, canals and bridges,and for towing others who are engineless. One can't always hove to.
I'm sure your boat will sail well, these types do. But blaming your design on a boat not yet built?
I am not just busting stones or trolling. That used to be me, engineless for 6 years and semi engineless for 7 more.

[PeterSibley]

I have a 20 hp Bukh in the shed , cheap enough and reliable . It's not hard to swell the lines a little or even run a shaft out the side .The last is nice in that you get a real rudder rather than one with a big hole in it .

An experience with a ferry a few years ago convinced me that any boat with so much draft that it has to share water with high speed craft needs to be able to get out of the way. I wish it wasn't so .

[coopercdrkey]

An experience with a ferry a few years ago convinced me that any boat with so much draft that it has to share water with high speed craft needs to be able to get out of the way. I wish it wasn't so .

Or, as the old saying goes, "Right of Way equals Mass times Velocity"

[Duncan S]

The boat looks nice to me but what do I know!

I’m afraid I’m with the guys above as regards engineless dreamers’.

I would think any designer worth his salt would design in the facility to fit an auxiliary engine regardless of whether the owner /builder to be ---- wanted one. They may wake up at some time in the future.

[Peerie Maa]

Run the shaft through the quarter with a folding prop. That will give minimum drag and with no hole in the rudder she will sail better. You can rig a hydraulic drive, so the engine can be placed anywhere you want, the other benefit of an engine on a liveaboard is that it can double as a jenny keeping batteries topped up for hotel load.
If you want standing head room I would lose the hollow garboards, more like a Plymouth hooker. That will give you more width of cabin sole deeper in the boat.

[Bob Cleek]

Dream on. A boat that size requires an engine, much as it would be nice to avoid it. Forget oars. You are fantasizing without any real experience, I fear. Have you ever tried to row any boat, let alone one that size, in any kind of a current? Have you ever skulled anything beyond a rowboat? It's really not possible, although I expect a very large crude carrier bearing down on you would provide great motivation to try!

What you are looking for, actually, sounds a lot like a gleoiteog or pucan (pronounced "glow-chug" and "Poo-can'), the smaller classes of Conamara (Galway) hookers.











Check out these guys: http://www.galwayhookerassociation.ie/ http://www.claddaghboatmen.com/

The video on the first website is a real winner!

[gilberj]

I tend to agree with Wizbang, despite the fact that I am one of those that sails 98% of the time. There are certain limitations placed on you when you are engineless. Making a landfall is one, moving to a more secure mooring say in an inner harbour, or creek, to reduce hazards when a storm or hurricane might be passing through, transiting a controlled waterway like the Panama Canal.

[Peter Vella]

I have had a go at sculling a 12 ton pilot cutter, but I wasn't very good at it because it was my first go a sculling anything. The skipper on the otherhand could get her moving up to a knot and a half around the harbour but he has had lots of practice.

I don't want this to drift into a debate about the virtue or folly of engineless sailing. There are other threads for that no doubt. I am certain that I dont want a boat that has been designed with a sacrifice it's sailing qualities for the sake of having an inboard engine. For a 7 tonner what I have so far has a large section amidships with a long flat run aft. It is the best use of her displacement in terms of maximising accomodation and she should also be a better sailer as well.

[skaraborgcraft]

Im with Peerie with the suggestion of an offset shaft,folding prop and hydraulic transmission if engine placement is an issue. I know people who have an engineless lugger,and she is a fast boat,put down to not having the drag of a large prop and big hole in the rudder,but the above suggestion would add very little in terms of drag,so should not be dismissed. They normally sail with a crew,have oars and very large sweeps,and thery really know how to sail. Having spent 4 days in sight of Maderia and becalmed,i will also back a good engine is a sensible option,i too have been there and done it,and would not go back,just because its there,does not mean you have to use it. Nice looking boat anyway, is sail performance more important than accomodation?

[Peter Vella]

skaraborgcraft, sail performace is important, I want to build a reasonably fast boat but I also want to be able to live aboard her. If going for pure performance I think I would want a longer and narrower hull with lots of external ballast on a deep, short keel coupled with a bermuda rig. That boat would be much less comfortable below and not as rugged and easy to repair as a gaff rig. On the other hand I don't want a sort of heavy cruiser that has been designed from the inside out, that can't point well and needs a gale to get anywhere.

[Duncan S]

I’m not sure your design looks like a Galway Hooker but Bob seems to think it does.

Anyway since you seem to be into some good hard physical work like sculling a 7 ton cutter. You may like the idea that most of the traditional designs of this west coast don’t have any fixed ballast. When ballast is deemed necessary they load big stones off the beach. During racing when deemed necessary they start chucking them over the side!

They are by the way built about twice as heavily as a normal sailing boat of that size

[Peter Vella]

I have started a roughing out a sail plan:

...and the construction details:

So far I have been trying to work out where the floors would go, and this involves a process of fine tuning the hull shape. So far she is well balanced and has a nice long run. To get more space for an inboard in it's ideal position low down aft of the cabin space would invove bellying out the run which would in turn have to be balanced by making her fuller forward as well, in other words she will be far slower and heavier for the sake of not having the engine in the middle of the cabin. I will look into the hydraulic tranmission that Peerie Ma suggests as a possibility, but I don't want to be designing the hull around an engine.

[wizbang 13]

But you would tweak the hull for floor timbers?
I don't really know squat about designing boats, but the inner main stay,sl looks too big ( overlapping)and the flyin jib looks too small,(needs a nose pole on a boat this size)
gonna have running backs? That means in a tack , in light air,you will have to deal with 8 lines.
Nice jacket!!

[PeterSibley]

You might find this thread interesting , not many photos now though.http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...ie-Michon-quot

[Peerie Maa]

The first thing that you need to do when laying out the accommodation is to cut some sections, and take off the plank and frame thickness, then with the throat of the floors added in you will have a better idea of where the cabin sole will come too.
Don't forget the mast step, they eat into headroom something chronic.

[Peter Vella]

Duncan - I am 31 and in pretty good shape. I can't see myself wanting to scull a large boat in my 60s but that seems a long way off right now. The Galway hookers have a crazy amount of tumblehome. Looks good, but I wonder why that development took place. It doesn't seem practical for a working boat.

Wiz - It's not until I tried positioning the floor timbers that I realised that in some places the amount of hollow in the tuck would be impractical unless I was going to use cast bronze floors which could be deep enough yet still be strong. I wouldn't trust a wooden floor that is mostly filler. It's not a big deal to correct, just easing the hollow out a bit so that the transition from the garboards up to the angle of the deadrise is not so acute and the floors can therefore sit lower.

I drew the topsail and jib tops'l with a mind to eventually have them, but I would probably launch without them. I would only thin about raising the jib topsl on a long tack, when I know I won't be tacking for a couple of hours at least. It may not even be worth having it at all. The idea is that it slots air around the topsail rather than provide much drive in itself. I think if it needs to be big enough that it must be poled out on a jib boom it might be more hassle than it's worth, but it looks pretty.

The jacket is very important for when pulling into port. I haven't got round to designing the tasteful silk cravat yet.

[wizbang 13]

ya, I'm sure you don't want this thread to be just the old guys busting the uppity young feller.
But, the nose pole goes hand in hand with the enginelessness. You gotta be able to pile on sail, and a gaffer cannot tolerate a big genny.
I carried 850 sq ft on my 30'er,(for 25 years) until I installed a proper diesel. THEN, I ditched the flyin jib and mizzen stay'sl .
Another myth is the heavy cruiser that cannot point well. Mine is one of those, but she does it relentlessly, like the ever ready bunny. day after day, week after week, she goes upwind, slowly.

[gilberj]

You might consider on a relatively small cutter like that, having the aft-most shrouds leading a little further aft. I had a cutter slightly smaller than that without runners. With a well engineered mast and partners, there will be enough to hold the mast up, particularly with a small headsails. When you are close hauled you also have the added support of the main sheet through the peak halyards, helping to keep the stays'l tight.
In my case going to windward was a treat. We did not point as high as a typical macaroni sloop, but something between 50 and 55 degrees off the wind, we had lots of power to punch into whatever sea there was.
If I was designing from scratch I'd make a conscious attempt to get good head room in the cabin. I am 5'11", so not unusually tall. I find most small traditional boats end up with perhaps 6' headroom between the beams. I end up constantly slightly hunched over. Try for 6'4" or even 6'6" and have a space that feels large.
In this small size you may want to evaluate your priorities.....Living aboard (I have lived and cruised on several small sailboats) a boat and conducting a relatively conventional life...going to work, coming home, shopping...needs as much space as you can get. Actively cruising you can get away with less space and focus on sailing qualities.

[Thad Van Gilder]

I too have done the sailing a 9 ton cutter without an engine. I was too broke to buy one. you can get by if you have no job and have patience of a saint.

I would at least have a seagull in a dinghy. When I sailed around the delmarva peninsula in a 1923 gaff cutter without an engine, we pushed it through the C and D canal with a 4 hp seagull. at 1.5 knots.... for hours and hours...

I have messed up the diesel in my endeavour 37 and sailed quite a bit on a cruise without an engine....
for example, arriving 9 hours late at 3 am after a brief sail from annapolis to St. michaels md turned into a 18 hour sail when the wind drop to 5 knots and the tide was going out the miles river

you can do it.... I have done it.... but you really don't want to do it!!!!!

-Thad

[Bob Cleek]

I’m not sure your design looks like a Galway Hooker but Bob seems to think it does.

Anyway since you seem to be into some good hard physical work like sculling a 7 ton cutter. You may like the idea that most of the traditional designs of this west coast don’t have any fixed ballast. When ballast is deemed necessary they load big stones off the beach. During racing when deemed necessary they start chucking them over the side!

They are by the way built about twice as heavily as a normal sailing boat of that size

My suggestion of the Conamara hooker type was in response to his expressed desire for an open boat and cutter rig in the size range stated and his desire for a well-performing hull shape.

The boat he has designed, actually, closely resembles a Kinsale hooker.











The Kinsale hooker, a decked fishing vessel, evolved for use further out to sea, and hence for overnight voyages, contrasted with the Conamara hookers, which were primarily day sailers. The Kinsale hooker, now extinct, but in the process of being historically recreated, was never considered to be as good a sailer as its Galway cousins. (See: http://www.facebook.com/KinsaleHookerProject.)

[Bob Cleek]

The Galway hookers have a crazy amount of tumblehome. Looks good, but I wonder why that development took place. It doesn't seem practical for a working boat.

Several reasons, actually. The tumblehome allows the boat to rest against a stone quay when the tide goes out, permitting the boat to remain on a more even keel when she takes the ground. The tumblehome provides substantial bouyancy so she hardens up when the boat is sharply heeled, keeping the rail from going under. This permits a lower freeboard aft, which is convenient for hook and line fishing. The tumblehome improves windward performance. (Imagine what the underwater shape looks like when the boat is sailing on her ear and the tumblehome is submerged.) The tumblehome increases the volume and carrying capacity of the vessel considerably.

There is, in fact, considerable variation in the amount of tumblehome among the various hooker builders, both from builder to builder contemporaneously and from time to time. Some were known for extreme tumblehome, while others reduced it considerably. Historically, the earlier hookers (before 1860 or so) tended to have greater tumble home and a less fine entry. As time went on, the entry, particularly below the waterline, was fined and the tumblehome is seen to have been reduced somewhat. A fascinating craft, the Conamara hooker. One of the few working watercraft we have with vessels built as early as the 1860's and still sailing. They were working sailing craft first recorded as early as the late 1700's and continued working under sail up through the mid-1960's and are now experiencing a vigorous revival.

[Peter Vella]

Bob - The small open boat for knocking about in that I am thinking of would be more like a dingy in the 12-16 ft range. In fact I have plans for a Selway Fisher Stornoway 12 footer, if built in glued ply would be light enough to go on the roof of a car. I was planning originally to design and build a trailerable pocket cruiser based off the Cape Cod catboat, but I have come to thinking that my effort and money would be more wisely spent building the boat that I would want to keep long term rather than something 'in-between'.

The Kinsale Hooker looks interesting. The construction reminds me of the Scilly Isles pilot cutters that Luke Powell builds, particularly the deep forefoot with the keel running almost the full length of the hull with no gripe, and the lute stern which I used as well in my design. The Kinsale hooker looks well suited for heavy seas.

[Bob Cleek]

Bob - The small open boat for knocking about in that I am thinking of would be more like a dingy in the 12-16 ft range. In fact I have plans for a Selway Fisher Stornoway 12 footer, if built in glued ply would be light enough to go on the roof of a car. I was planning originally to design and build a trailerable pocket cruiser based off the Cape Cod catboat, but I have come to thinking that my effort and money would be more wisely spent building the boat that I would want to keep long term rather than something 'in-between'.

The Kinsale Hooker looks interesting. The construction reminds me of the Scilly Isles pilot cutters that Luke Powell builds, particularly the deep forefoot with the keel running almost the full length of the hull with no gripe, and the lute stern which I used as well in my design. The Kinsale hooker looks well suited for heavy seas.

Aha! Got ya. So what you do is build a sailing dinghy for now that will be specifically chosen with the bigger boat in mind. Then, when the big boat is built, you'll have the right size dinghy that will fit and can be carried aboard. Check out that Kinsale Hooker Project URL above. Those guys have done all the research and have already had the plans drawn up (from a contemporary museum model) by a naval architect who's apparently done all the computations and tweaked the lines. They have the plans and lines available in digital format. (I think they actually took the lines off the model using "point cloud" technology, creating a digital 3D file.) They have produced all the lofting patterns digitally and so they can be printed on mylar. A CD is a heck of a lot easier than laying down the lines by hand on the loft floor.

The Kinsale hooker was designed for heavy seas and reportedly handled them well. Going out to fish for two or three days at a time, they had to be able to heave to in rough seas when caught out in a blow. They weren't as fast as the Conamara hookers, but it was a case of "the slow horse for the long ride."

Here's more on the Kinsale hooker, including the lines, the model they came from, and the "point cloud" taken from the model: http://tradboats.ie/project/kinsale-hooker.php

[robert666]

If you haven't already got it, Inshore Craft by Seaforth publishing is available on amazon for around £25, it contains lines for hundreds of traditional uk boats. it would be useful to compare the hullforms of your design with other similar types.

Your hull looks to be well balenced under water and the long, fine entry and run look like making her quite fast. I would tweak the sheerline up slightly right aft and about a third back from the bow aswell. I think engineless sailing is perfectly possible if you're prepared to work tides and occasionally even leave the boat and travell home overland and collect her again when the tides suit the return journey. I have sailed countless daytrips on the clyde in heavy displacement boats of 26-28ft that were either enginless or might as well have been.

I would suggest rigging her so that in a force 5 you can carry main, staysail and middle jib. Put three reefs in the main and two in the staysail for heavy weather along with a storm jib and trysail. For light winds of F3-4 carry a topsail and large jib/genoa. In winds below this carry a watersail, jib topsail, balloon staysail and all the other sails you can possibly hang. I would also suggest a longer bowsprit and mainboom to allow more sail to be carried low down.

Take a look here;
http://www.smackdock.co.uk/beaufort.htm

Robert

[robert666]

Having had a more detailed look and comparing to several other designs, I think the second waterline wants filling out slightly, something like this;
These are just some suggestions based on what looks right to my eye, you might prefer to leave it as designed, and thats probably just as good.

overall you have a very good design, but if you're anything like me it'll never be finished; I started my fishing lugger design over a year ago and I'm still tweaking the lines here and there and often I just end up back where I started.

Another thing worth considering, especially when engineless, are beaching legs. They allow you to make use of so many shelterd coves and sea lochs that dry out. Many boats round the UK overwinter on legs, only floating for an hour or so at high tide. With the mast unstepped I think it could be the safest way to ride out a bad gale if you couldn't sail to a good mooring.

Robert

[Sayla]

Good effort - inspiring - for feedback, to my eye the transition from part cut-away forefoot to keel could be smoother, and the stern quarter turn of the bilge also - maybe a bit more like this kinda thing

[Paul Pless]

These look like the lines of a boat much larger than 7 tons. . .

[Peter Vella]

Robert - I have tried to keep the run as flat as possible. I think she will be able to reach a higher hull speed that way. A boat like the Kinsale hooker that Bob posted would I think have a lower hull speed for her length with the extremely round run. I am no expert on hydrodynamics, it is just intuition, but I think a long flat run will help stop the stern from squating whereas the more rounded the run is, the more it will generate a negative pressure behind but also slightly below it, meaning not only do you get more drag, the stern is also being pulled downwards the faster the boat goes. The other advantage in the hull shape I have developed is that the displacement is largely carried amidships, which should be good not only for her sailing qualities but also gives the best accomodation for her size. Like I mentioned earlier the only drawback is that there is little room for an inboard unless it is positioned in the cabin space.

This is a sadly neglected Lancashire nobby I went to look at in Conwy last year, 'Albion'. As you can see, the after end of her hull is quite similar to what I have drawn but with a more extreme curvature at the turn of the bilge. In better days Albion was said to be very fast for an old gaffer and won alot of the nobby races organised in Conwy:

[Peter Vella]

sayla - I want to keep a plumb stem above the waterline, so with a cut away forefoot there is going to be a somewhat abrupt angle there. Here is what I have now:

[johnw]

Isn't that a rather low ballast ratio? That's assuming the boat weighs 7 tons, rather than being 7 tons Thames measurement of some such. Maybe a thicker keel so you don't have to carry much inside ballast?

[skaraborgcraft]

Isn't that a rather low ballast ratio? That's assuming the boat weighs 7 tons, rather than being 7 tons Thames measurement of some such. Maybe a thicker keel so you don't have to carry much inside ballast?

Depends.....in comparison to what? A 20 ton displacement pilot cutter may only have a 3 ton outside lead keel. Some inside ballast is a good thing,but it does depend on how much room there is in your bilges to carry it.

[Peter Vella]

John - The hull is up to 7430kg on the DWL now, so that's a ballast ratio of 22.5% with just the external ballast. I would hope to get another ton inside, hopefully scrap iron in concrete. Lead is so expensive now. For the ballast keel I have considered using iron in concrete as an alternative but it has too many downsides compared to lead, mainly durablility/galvanic corrosion issues, the comparative size that it would need to be, and the fact that unlike lead it wont absorb the energy of running hard aground but transfer the shock into the rest of the hull. I may increase the ballast keel up to 2 tons. It is one of those things that are possible to change in a later refit if she was still too tender even with plenty of internal ballast, not desirable but possible.

I notice that alot of plastic production cruisers have ballast ratios of usually around 35% and higher, but they have relatively light hulls and tall rigs. The pilot cutters which I have taken inspiration from would traditionally have had no external ballast at all.

The other advantage of internal ballast in the form of sandbags or rocks is that it can be readily offloaded or added to trim the boat depending on how much gear and people she is to be carrying. A boat with lots of external ballast has less options.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

In a boat of this size, I'd definitely want all the ballast apart from some trimming pigs on the bottom of the keel. You need all the stiffness you can get in this size.

Disagreeing, cautiously, with Bob, I think the reason for the extreme tumblehome in the Galway hookers is because they are essentially open boat,s being cargo carriers. The tumblehome adds a lot of strength to the hull.

My own boat" Mirelle" (12 tons Thames, 9-10 tons displacement, 6.69 nett) is "practically engineless". I do carry a sweep, but frankly a better option is the Seagull on the dinghy alongside.. I plan on replacing the engine, which is 45 years old, very shortly!

My friend Jamie Clay sails "Firefly" without an engine but then he is a boatbuilder and works for himself...

Mirelle has a ballast keel which weighs 3.25 tons and another ton of lead inside and is reckoned to be slightly tender.

[wizbang 13]

I thought , well, assumed, that the tumble home was to make hauling nets on board easier ?

[Bob Cleek]

Disagreeing, cautiously, with Bob, I think the reason for the extreme tumblehome in the Galway hookers is because they are essentially open boat,s being cargo carriers. The tumblehome adds a lot of strength to the hull.

Andrew, being on this side of the Pond, all I know about the Irish hookers is what I read in books, although I've been doing a lot of research on them recently. (A candidate for my next dockyard style model, perhaps.) The reasons I offered for the tumblehome were from my research. I hadn't heard anything about it being for strength, although it does increase cargo capacity certainly. In fact, though, the hookers evolved as hook and line fishing boats (not setting nets, which by some reports is why they are called hookers, although the origins of the name are lost in the mists of time.) and really weren't as widely engaged in cargo trade as they were in fishing until the late 19th Century.

As for strength, they are built incredibly stout with massive sawn frames. A comparison with the construction techniques of 18th Century Dutch yachts reveals they are much alike in many respects. Besides the heavy framing and planking, as open boats, they derived strength from very heavy shelves and clamps and two massive kneed beams or thwarts, one at the mast and one aft of that. This photo shows the after beam and the heavy shelving it's kneed into. There is another similar beam at the mast, which carries an iron band that holds the mast in place. The foredecking back to the forward cross beam is common in hookers above about 25' long, with the smaller boats("pucans") being entirely open. A few of the larger hookers, employed carrying dry goods to the Aran Islands, some like floating "general stores," were fully decked to keep their cargo dry.

[Vince Brennan]

This thread is definitely one of the reasons I come here: informative, opinionated but politely so and in general a superb display of the willingness to share knowledge I have come to expect of youse lot.

After a time in the Bilge, the air up here is like roses.

Thanks to all for increasing MY knowledge!

[Rum_Pirate]

Do it by eye and a plumb bob like these chaps did and do.

PS these might be larger than 7 tons.



[/URL]

[Rum_Pirate]

[gilberj]

The tumble-home on saw'n frames give enormous strength along the side without as much weight....yes I know they were very substantially built but the strength difference would easily show up over the life of the boat as it keeps its shape. The tumble-home also allows the occupants to easily stand at the side reaching over for jigging a hand line.

[Sayla]

sayla - I want to keep a plumb stem above the waterline, so with a cut away forefoot there is going to be a somewhat abrupt angle there. Here is what I have now:

I was meaning change along the keel, not the bow per se

If you haven't already....other boats perhaps worth checking/comparing lines with I think would be Atkins (Fore n Aft, Tally Ho maybe), L Hess cutters, Ed Burnett cutters, perhaps M. Smaalders Kahuna & North Sea, and Viviers classics

The lines look a bit like those of larger boats - and very British

.......you can always take an outboard with you, stowed away somewhere.....

sayla

[Bob Cleek]

The tumble-home on saw'n frames give enormous strength along the side without as much weight....yes I know they were very substantially built but the strength difference would easily show up over the life of the boat as it keeps its shape. The tumble-home also allows the occupants to easily stand at the side reaching over for jigging a hand line.

Good points! I'd never thought about the fact that it would allow for easier hand-lining access. It certainly is true that they hold their shape. There are a lot of restored hookers of great age. The oldest still sailing was, IIRC, built sometime in the 1860's. Late 1800's examples still in commission aren't unusual among the fleet.

[Peerie Maa]

The tumble-home on saw'n frames give enormous strength along the side without as much weight....yes I know they were very substantially built but the strength difference would easily show up over the life of the boat as it keeps its shape. The tumble-home also allows the occupants to easily stand at the side reaching over for jigging a hand line.

To add to the strength argument, tumble home allowed them to dry out leaning against a quay without putting the shear or washboards at risk of damage.

[Gold Rock]

[QUOTE=Bob Cleek;3400253]Dream on. A boat that size requires an engine, much as it would be nice to avoid it. Forget oars. You are fantasizing without any real experience, I fear. Have you ever tried to row any boat, let alone one that size, in any kind of a current? Have you ever skulled anything beyond a rowboat? It's really not possible, although I expect a very large crude carrier bearing down on you would provide great motivation to try!



QUOTE]

I sailed my 30 ft. 7 ton full keel boat engineless for ten years. I fabricated a very efficient yuloh which proved quite suitable. I was a liveaboard for eight of those years and covered quite a few sea miles throughout the Puget Sound. It's perfectly doable.

[wizbang 13]

[QUOTE=Gold Rock;3408202]

Dream on. A boat that size requires an engine, much as it would be nice to avoid it. Forget oars. You are fantasizing without any real experience, I fear. Have you ever tried to row any boat, let alone one that size, in any kind of a current? Have you ever skulled anything beyond a rowboat? It's really not possible, although I expect a very large crude carrier bearing down on you would provide great motivation to try!



QUOTE]

I sailed my 30 ft. 7 ton full keel boat engineless for ten years. I fabricated a very efficient yuloh which proved quite suitable. I was a liveaboard for eight of those years and covered quite a few sea miles throughout the Puget Sound. It's perfectly doable.

The Puget sound does not really HAVE any sea miles. It do have a butt load of shipping, current, tide, calm and headwind.