Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 36 to 70 of 268

Thread: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

  1. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sweden,Scilly Isles, Siberia
    Posts
    7,923

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    If your still open to other designs, i would definately have Claphams Roslyn Yawl on the short list.....known to be seaworthy and a self righter.



    Even Mr Parker speaks highly of Minocqua, lines and details in the back of his sharpie book.

  2. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by gilberj View Post
    On the subject of leeboards. I. Think they are one solution to leeway. I really like the space in my cabin. The downside is you have to raise and lower when you tack. I cannot argue with someone who thinks they are ugly. To each their own.
    As to cabin lay out. I would very specifically build less sleeping berths. Cruising storage is more important than trying to sleep 4 or 6, which probably will never happen. Have good sleeping accommodation for two and lots of storage.

    Dear Gilbertj,


    Congratulations on ownership, and use, of a magnificent, and beautiful example of the boat designers and builders art.


    Quote from #28, 11-11-2011. “I have quite a bit of experience with leeboards. Many years ago I had a small skiff with leeboards which I sailed a lot and cruised a little in smaller lakes in northern Ontario. At that time I had no reason to doubt the efficiency, and it allowed me to roll out a sleeping bag in the bottom of the boat comfortably.


    I now sail a Herreshoff Meadowlark "Whimbrel" I can offer more insight on the overall plus's and minuses.”


    I have just looked up Meadowlarks design (in “sensible CruisingDesigns”) again, and see the original leeboard mounting. I also read, see above, that you modified this mounting to place the pivot AT the deck joint, and with what sounds like a more substantial fitting. To be honest, building a "Meadowlark" as designed, could be a solution for Rigadog's requirements, shallow draft, proven design, and elegant.


    I apologize for sounding too negative about Lee boards. My objection is not aesthetic, but practical. Much as I admire the Meadowlark, I think it's a magnificent design, my experience with Lee boards was not good.


    In any chop, especially with little wind, and hence little way on (we were racing), they rattled and banged disturbingly, and though no apparent damage was done, I imagined after a while that they were suffering (it went on for a couple of hours). Later, as the wind and weather got up, this was East of Maldon, North of Margate, in the North Sea, the fastenings were under considerable strain, and I was concerned for their stability. The best I sailed with, on another boat, were Lee boards attached by a single pennant (line) and that floated free (bird wing?) when in light air, or on the 'wrong' side in a tack (a pennant at the top, and a chock fore and aft at the waterline). These seemed safe and tough, but still vulnerable to weather. Admittedly much rougher weather than perhaps elsewhere. In both boats, with the motor on, the Lee boards banged about alarmingly, until lifted completely clear. Perhaps they were both poor installations, but they were common to other similar boats sailing at the time. Note; first boat old, even in 1970, 26+’, planked, a “barge yacht”?, the other shorter, 22’?, plywood, much newer, and originally for the ‘broads’ i think.


    Maurice Griffiethes describes (in “one man and his barge”) an incident where the bolt holding the lee board on broke (or came undone), necessitating spending the night on a sand bar, and putting a new bolt in next morning. Im not sure i would have enjoyed the original breakage as described by Maurice, but the ease of repair is very significant, and telling.


    I've seen designs for side by side center boards, and dagger boards, but never seen one in person. I can't see them working well with the interior layout of the Sea Bright 33, or it's lapstrake hull and wide keel.


    My preference for the layout sketched by Reuel in his 'standard' Sea Bright 33, is to have the forward berth "made up" as a bed all the time, while I find sitting athwartships at sea, and in harbor comfortable, if not lounge like. I agree, more stowage is best, but in a boat this light, this might not be a good idea. Heavy stuff (spares, tools, canned foods, liquids) could go beneath the saloon couches, and there is a lot of space for light stuff aft of the cabin.


    My wife dislikes having to 'make up' beds every night, refuses to ‘sit’ on a designated ‘bed’ and requires a place to ‘get away’ at times. Hence the forward cabin with permanent made up bed, where she can retire and lounge against the curved side if so desired. The main cabin couches will have their base at 5-10’ from horizontal, and the backs 100-110’ from the base, real lounge shape, not suitable for sleeping unless a lee cloth is used. I will also sit against the bulkhead with my feet on the squab reading.


    Tom Colvin waxed lyrical about the advantage of a proper ‘lounge’ or reading chair, with space for the coffee cup. He put two in his deck house i think. I have used plastic chairs lashed to the push-put, but the sitter is very exposed.

  3. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Thanks for the reply....I would not make strenuous arguments for leeboards, because there are pluses and minuses. at least part of it all rests on your personal attitude. You accept the limitations with the advantages or you don't. On Whimbrel the leeboard bangs from time to time, usually in light winds when a bigger power boat goes by at speed. It does not bang often. Herreshoff designed deck mounting brackets somewhat similar to mine on his later designs. On the boat you refer to which broke the bolt attachment that could happen to an older boat, stuff breaks....Once Whimbrel is actually moving the board almost never bangs, it is held tight to the side by the force of the water pressure....Whimbrels leeboard is about 9' long and still is slightly too small, I would make it wider, increase the area about 20%, this to allow better light wind (very slow speed) performance. Once we are moving 2.5 to 3 knots we are fine and sailing in the green zone.
    I think the Meadowlark would fit the intended mission perfectly. My only concern with the origonally suggested Seabright 33 is living aboard for months at a time. Even the 36' is impaired with the CB.
    These well ballasted shallow boats are astonishingly seaworthy check Munroe and Egret and Presto. Massive reserve buoyancy relative to displacement, makes them dry. Whimbrel has ample residual stability in the event of a knock down, mast in the water. We can and have worked to windward in 35 knots gusting over 40 easily and comfortably and with no real stress. This is mostly due to the divided rig, but also due to the spread out displacement. we do not fight with the waves the way a heavier boat will.
    I will say I always admired the Meadowlark, but was unsure till I sailed one what the potential is.
    Whimbrel seldom pounds in a seaway, probably not more than most boats in the same sea. The leeboards are one more thing to tack but seldom pound either. The people part of the cabin is about 13 feet long and 8 feet wide and unencumbered by a CB case. The fo'c'sle is for sail storage and the anchor, and cooler and the area under the cockpit is for spare rope and water, and fuel, and tarps and fenders. The cabin sleeps two comfortable with no mast or CB case in the way keeping you pure.... I like to sleep WITH my wife. We could include a third person easily but a forth would present a challenge, not really insurmountable but yes we are starting to be close. Whimbrel is a small 33 footer. The Seabright 33 is even a little smaller and with less usable space. I'd still consider it as meeting the same mission requirements and would really consider it as an alternative.
    Last edited by gilberj; 05-20-2014 at 12:35 AM.

  4. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    There is as you say considerable force on th leeboard and it's attachments. Everything has to be strong. That said you have pretty much identical forces on a centre-board and case. If I forget to drop the windward board before tacking, I cannot easily get it down properly after I have tacked.
    On the other hand I have tacked into a harbour over a 2 ft sand bar. How many 33 footers can do that?..........
    Last edited by gilberj; 05-20-2014 at 12:44 PM.

  5. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,297

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Is there anything to be gained by making the 33 footer beamier? Mr. Parker said that optimally the beam should be 9 1/2 feet to 10. He is willing to redesign it and recommends the cat ketch rig on the 33, but I don't want a more complicated boat, just one slightly roomier and a bit less tender perhaps.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  6. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,297

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by skaraborgcraft View Post
    If your still open to other designs, i would definately have Claphams Roslyn Yawl on the short list.....known to be seaworthy and a self righter.



    Even Mr Parker speaks highly of Minocqua, lines and details in the back of his sharpie book.

    I have looked at this boat, and really like it, but not crazy about the long bowsprit and the mainsail rig. I have heard they are difficult to get a good set on.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  7. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,297

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by Sayla View Post
    Is an AS29 targeted to this spec?....or is the jury still out re: bluewater

    I find this design very interesting but, looks-wise I can't say I'd like to own one.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  8. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sweden,Scilly Isles, Siberia
    Posts
    7,923

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Im confident that a cat ketch rig could be worked up for the Roslyn Yawl. Keep that nice bow and get shot of the overly long sprit. It would be over-rigged in this climate, so a handy split rig would certainly be on my list of changes,something similar to Munroes Kingfisher rig would suit. Its still a pretty narrow hull though, but big boat at low weight can sometimes work very well financially.
    Going wider on the Seabright is certainly an option, but i have not gone offshore in anything without a fixed keel and a chunk of ballast on the end, but for sure there would be some added stability with the added beam.

  9. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Mr. Bolger real contribution to boating is not the "Bolger Box" boats. It is the unothadox thinking. You can love or hate to boats, but the original "out of the box" (pardon the pun) thinking was particular to him. Working on the issues that count, and ignoring issues that matter less were his greatest contribution. My collection of his books are well thumbed and valued. I never actually considered building one of the boxes.......... I think Mr. Parkers Seabright 33 is one of my favorites in that relative class of boat. Increasing the beam by a foot is probably a good idea, both improving stiffness and roominess, though I'd guess you would then want a slightly larger sail-plan to compensate. As to the rig....I am a sailor and would definitely choose the ketch rig or cat ketch rig. The other sail-plan is really an auxiliary sail-plan in addition to an engine, at least as I see it. If I were planning to motor mainly and sail when the wind was fair then a version of that sprit sloop rig would be the thing to have. The ketch rig is a similar geometry to my Meadowlark. It is a great and versatile cruising rig, actually perhaps the best overall of any boat I have sailed. The short gaffs on single halyards are great. I have the same arrangement on my boat and like it a lot. On the Meadowlark the masts are supported with stays and shrouds, and the gaffs and sails are hoisted on tracks. This was L.F. Herreshoff's solution along with the box section spars. It works as well. Now almost 70 years later we have a lot more experience designing and building fully cantilevered hollow un-stayed masts. Were I considering building a boat in this class I would almost certainly be considering free standing masts. As I say I like this boat a lot.........You might also consider something like Roger Martin's Presto 30 in wood http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...sto-30-In-WOOD!

  10. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,297

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by gilberj View Post
    Mr. Bolger real contribution to boating is not the "Bolger Box" boats. It is the unothadox thinking. You can love or hate to boats, but the original "out of the box" (pardon the pun) thinking was particular to him. Working on the issues that count, and ignoring issues that matter less were his greatest contribution. My collection of his books are well thumbed and valued. I never actually considered building one of the boxes.......... I think Mr. Parkers Seabright 33 is one of my favorites in that relative class of boat. Increasing the beam by a foot is probably a good idea, both improving stiffness and roominess, though I'd guess you would then want a slightly larger sail-plan to compensate. As to the rig....I am a sailor and would definitely choose the ketch rig or cat ketch rig. The other sail-plan is really an auxiliary sail-plan in addition to an engine, at least as I see it. If I were planning to motor mainly and sail when the wind was fair then a version of that sprit sloop rig would be the thing to have. The ketch rig is a similar geometry to my Meadowlark. It is a great and versatile cruising rig, actually perhaps the best overall of any boat I have sailed. The short gaffs on single halyards are great. I have the same arrangement on my boat and like it a lot. On the Meadowlark the masts are supported with stays and shrouds, and the gaffs and sails are hoisted on tracks. This was L.F. Herreshoff's solution along with the box section spars. It works as well. Now almost 70 years later we have a lot more experience designing and building fully cantilevered hollow un-stayed masts. Were I considering building a boat in this class I would almost certainly be considering free standing masts. As I say I like this boat a lot.........You might also consider something like Roger Martin's Presto 30 in wood http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...sto-30-In-WOOD!

    I agree about his unorthodox approach, really wonderful thinking. And he was a very readable author, I would like to have known him.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  11. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigadog View Post
    Is there anything to be gained by making the 33 footer beamier? Mr. Parker said that optimally the beam should be 9 1/2 feet to 10. He is willing to redesign it and recommends the cat ketch rig on the 33, but I don't want a more complicated boat, just one slightly roomier and a bit less tender perhaps.
    Rregardless of whether he widens it or not, go with the cat ketch, it's REALY easy to sail.

    I second the comment about single halyard gaff rig, most convenient. I personally favor a large (curved?) head board, sometimes called a club in the Caribean, but any sort of short gaff would do. I think it derives from the Dutch 'Schloop' taken to the Caribean by a wrecked dutch sailor. It may also have been derived from the 'leg o mutton' into the 'shoulder o mutton'. It was certainly a faster sail than British gaff rigged 'Sloops of war' at the time, forcing them to purchase Caribean (Bahama?) built boats to pursue their likeness. I think the US Navy did likewise.


    As some sort of world expert of carbon fiber structure, I would not suggest a carbon fiber mast. I would recommend an aluminum one, a flag pole is usually quite cheap. As aluminum does not like 'point' loads, attach the boom to a bracket on, or at the base of the mast. Attach the sail using lacing, there is one form that does not jam, and I used waxed line, though slippery plastic line might work too. I saw a short gaff/club supported off such a mast by a sort of half sleeve, gradually pulled closed as it rose by paral beads as the halyard tensioned. This system allowed the sail to be reefed easily, and the Luff to be re tensioned with the luff lacing.


    I just finished re-reading the first chapter of Maurice Griffith's 'Little ships and Shoal waters' again. A must read for thin water, indeed all coastal sailors. Obviously written shortly after a visit to the US to study Chesapeake bay boats, Munroe's and others of this ilk. He certainly met Herreshoff.


    He speaks a great deal about how shallow draft boats, with CB, lee boards, et-al raised, will slide away from a wave. Boats that have more sideways grip, do tend to 'roll' under a steep or breaking wave from abeam.


    One experience I'll never forget, approaching a sandbar in the thames mouth, in a storm, and under the tutelage of an older sailor. The waves got progressively weaker and lower as the water shelved, until at about 18" deep water they had no power, and little height, until we grounded. "We", actually I then hauled out the kedge to its full length and set it such that when we lifted, the boat would swing to a position from which sailing was again possible. The wind died some during the tide change, and the incoming tide against the thames flow changed the flow pattern to where we could sail advantageously. Very educational for one of us.


    Shallow, and flat enough to ground out benignly, that's the way to do it.

  12. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigadog View Post
    Is there anything to be gained by making the 33 footer beamier? Mr. Parker said that optimally the beam should be 9 1/2 feet to 10. He is willing to redesign it and recommends the cat ketch rig on the 33, but I don't want a more complicated boat, just one slightly roomier and a bit less tender perhaps.
    As we all know, we buy boats by the pound. As the Seabright 33, Meadowlark (I think) and Reuel's Rosyln yawl are the lightest, they will tend to be the cheapest build. If Reuel is to modify the design, discuss either a far forward CB, like the Nautilus canoe yawl, or dual CB's as sketched by Long et-al in these forums. I'm sure Gilberj is right, and the CB case will get old quickly. Look through Maurice Griffith's books, he shows a wealth of ideas for 'disguising' or hiding CB cases.


    I keep rabbeting on about extending the sides by adding strakes, or a sort of final upper plank, wider and often painted differently from the lapstrake below it.


    I am unduly influenced by wanting higher sides to keep the water below me, but also obsessed by deck to hull strength. I also admit to being more than a little influenced by 'Stone Horse', Maurice Griffith's designs, and many others. Perhaps greatest was a long lean clinker (lapstrake) boat I sailed on in Kingswear (Dartmouth, UK). It was some sort of conversion, about 35' long, 8' wide? And rigged as a knockabout (bald headed, i.e. stem head jib) Gunter ketch. The hull had been extended upward by a plywood plank, about 10" to 12" high, with trim at the junction between the hull proper and the new plank, and around the deck edge. I assumed it was a parallel plank, but now I realize it must have been tapered, possibly both ways, as it looked so elegant. The two 4-5" round ports in these sides did it no favors in appearance, and were useless for light or vision.


    The deck had a little camber, not much, and was canvas covered tung and groove house flooring.


    The deck had a butterfly hatch above the cabin, and a fairly large lifting and sliding main hatch before the bridge deck, headroom under the butterfly was about 5'.
    The masts proper were wooden, and stayed with galvanized wire. It was rather tender, but sailed very fast. I appreciated that the masts/rig was reefed as the sails were reefed, and the mizzen staysail was a real powerhouse, being wire luffed. Apart from the Mirror, and a Rennyacht on a german lake, my only experience of "Gunter" Lug rigs, but I was very impressed.


    As I keep mentioning, any of the Ketch rigs here discussed, especially the cat ketches, will be extremely easy to rig and sail. Note Nigle Irens recent 'Farfarer', and Rommilly series. They will also be versatile, and very powerful when needed off the wind, if not race winners to windward. Remember, gentlemen do NOT beat to windward. I agree with Reuel in this recommendation.

  13. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    With regards to the large headboard leg'o'mutton sail vs. the short gaff. I favour the latter, though not strongly. The short gaff as drawn on the sail plan is a 4 part tackle running from the deck to a throat sheave (possibly in the mast), then to the throat block, up to the peak halyard block and then to the peak of the gaff. As drawn I think the end is too close to the end of the gaff, but not by a lot. Mine attaches to the gaff about 30% of the length of the gaff from the tip. This sort of arrangement puts approximately 2/3 of the halyard tension on the throat and about 1/3 on the peak. In light airs I can slack the halyard a few inches and the whole sail will ease a bit and fill out the draft perceptibly, while at the same time the gaff does not sag. The multiple purchase allows you to haul the sail up snugly by hand without a winch. With the halyard rigged in this way I have very good control of the shape and still have the advantage in shape control allowed by a gaff......... The large headboard is hoisted from a single point. It may take a little experimenting to find just the right single point. You will I think be able to get almost as good shape control, but I think you are somewhat limited in how long your gaff/large headboard can be.....it almost becomes a lug sail. Check out Michael Kasten's designs with this sort of sail. http://www.kastenmarine.com/sail.htm . One advantage of the large headboard sail of this size is that you can use an open snatch block http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...n+snatch+block on the end of the halyard for snugging up the sail, and have much less rope in the halyard, while still having the purchase for the last foot or so of hoisting.......As I say I slightly favour the short gaff with the halyard run pretty much as drawn.......My sails are fully battened, somewhat as per this sail-plan, though these look as if they are intended to be a little less technically modern. I would go again with fully battened sails. I do not have the sprit boom, and am undecided whether I might make that change next time I buy sails............With this geometry with the mizzen relatively larger and farther forward, I can sail effectively under mizzen alone. It is a preferred method in stronger winds. I have tacked around the crowded harbour in 25 knots wind, under mizzen alone. Often when returning to the harbour in a NW wind I will sail across the bar, the wind curving past the land to follow me in. Once past the shallows, I will drop the jib, secure it, then drop the main, leaving it in the lazy jacks, continue running under mizzen alone, till I am approaching the mooring. I haul in the mizzen sheet close, and helm a-lee to round up, walk forward with the boat hook and pick up the mooring. I have probably done this exact maneuver 30 or 40 times over the years. By the way I can cross the bar with as little as 2 feet of water, including working to windward.
    Last edited by gilberj; 05-23-2014 at 04:58 PM.

  14. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    With regards to the Seabright 33 accommodation plan. I'd seriously consider having a stepped CB case by cutting down the case to berth height for the forward half, with the aft end at the height as drawn. With the Ketch rig the main mast (foremast) is forward of the cabin. You could have a full width double berth in the forward part of the cabin unencumbered by either the CB case or the mast. I do not really like V berths anyway and prefer to use the fo'c'sle space for storage. On the port side of the case you have the galley, and perhaps the head, a porta-potty or one of the small Composting toilets might fit under the galley working seat. and on the stbd side you have the companion way. With the Ketch it is not handy having a centre-line companion way, the mizzen is in the way. The full width cabin will be a real boon in this case.

  15. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,297

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    I am leaning towards just getting the 33 as drawn. I am not sure the beamier boat would be a better sailor, more seaworthy. my feeling is that making the boat beamier/heaver will cost more work and expense. Any guesses ast how much, percentage-wise? Any,way, it being tender may not be a big deal and as far as space for two, it will just limit the amount of junk I bring aboard. I think I will do the Cat Ketch rig, not the Spritsail, although the simplicity is very appealing, but I can't see that it would have the same power. If anyone can make a case for it please do.
    Any other competing designs you can throw up are welcome of course.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  16. #51
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,297

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    PS, thanks to all for taking the time to look at this and help with your suggestions
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  17. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigadog View Post
    I am leaning towards just getting the 33 as drawn. I am not sure the beamier boat would be a better sailor, more seaworthy. my feeling is that making the boat beamier/heaver will cost more work and expense. Any guesses ast how much, percentage-wise? Any,way, it being tender may not be a big deal and as far as space for two, it will just limit the amount of junk I bring aboard. I think I will do the Cat Ketch rig, not the Spritsail, although the simplicity is very appealing, but I can't see that it would have the same power. If anyone can make a case for it please do.
    Any other competing designs you can throw up are welcome of course.
    For what its worth I would also choose the 33 pretty much as designed. I would talk with Mr.Parker about increasing the ballast somewhat and perhaps redesigning the CB case (and CB). and the other thig discussed during the thread of putting the ballast in a shoe outside.

  18. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,297

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    I agree on all your suggestions. It's interesting that the Seabright 23 has a different beam to length ratio, more like the 36 footer. The extra volume would be very nice on the smaller boat I tink.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  19. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigadog View Post
    I am leaning towards just getting the 33 as drawn. I am not sure the beamier boat would be a better sailor, more seaworthy. my feeling is that making the boat beamier/heaver will cost more work and expense. Any guesses ast how much, percentage-wise? Any,way, it being tender may not be a big deal and as far as space for two, it will just limit the amount of junk I bring aboard. I think I will do the Cat Ketch rig, not the Spritsail, although the simplicity is very appealing, but I can't see that it would have the same power. If anyone can make a case for it please do.
    Any other competing designs you can throw up are welcome of course.

    I agree wholly with building the 33 as designed, though think about increasing the hull height, whilst reducing the cabin side height. Remember, the 'sheer' curve so beloved by classic boat enthusiasts was part of combining a high bow to meet steep waves, with a gunwale low enough for comfortable rowing, or for hauling a net, or fish, over the side. Elegant, yes, but their purpose is generally irrelevant to modern usage.


    Defiantly use an external bottom 'shoe', solid steel as i described, or a steel shape filled with scrap steel and concrete as described by Gilberj. Use small diameter steel to improve packing density. Make it a bit heavier, the bottom strakes flair can stand more balast with little more imersion.

    I once tried to reef a sprit sail (off the dutch coast) and it took 3 strong men quite a time. The issue was, the sprit came out of the peak, and was a nightmare to get it back in, at sea, in waves, and weather. The sprit all the while threatening to take us overboard, or punch a hole through the hull. Besides, i don't think it was traditional in America, let alone the Caribbean. I would never countenance one for cruising.

    A slight misunderstanding between Gilberj and myself, the 'Club' gaff I described did indeed have a multi-part halyard, much as his do. I would strongly recommend such a scheme for utility, and NO winches. I called it a 'club' simply because it was not a parallel spar, but curved and tapered like a war club. The large 'head board' I mentioned is exactly similar to the one shown in Michael Kasten's designs, complete with multiple halyard holes. Either would work, but the multipart halyard would be the better and needs no winch, or 'sweating up'. I would also use a loose footed boom (and deep ‘foot’) on both sails, like those showen in Michael Kasten's boats, if only to improve off the wind performance.

    I agree totally that the CB should be cut down in height over the forward 3/4 or more, flush or below the forward berth. All the CB itself above the dashed line on the study plans, the forward upper part, does not contribute to keel area, merely supports the CB itself laterally. This function can be obtained through several alternate schemes, so this whole length need only reach a few inches into the case when lowered. The extreme rear of this centerboard is the only part that needs to be full 'width' (height) of the CB case, and indeed could be extended upwards further into a sort of hollow post which could go to the brdge deck or even cabin roof for stiffening and strength. The Selway-Fisher Kari-4 http://www.selway-fisher.com/Yachts2435.htm shows an example of what I am speaking of, though no 'gap' should show when the CB is lowered. This rear vertical extension must be fairly wide (width, or thickness) as it alone carries the side loads of the CB. Again, read 'Little Ships and Shoal Waters' by Maurice Griffith's, and I am sure there are other sources. Make sure the upper edge, or cover, of the CB case can be accessed easily, you will get muck in the slot, and it's easier to get it out from above. See post #10 in this thread. http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?108984-How-to-retract-a-centerboard


    Completely crazy, but canoe yawls used 'fan' type CB's where they retracted into themselves. See post #4 on this. http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...Richmond-VA-CL

    The cat ketch is so beneficial on this kind of boat, almost no other should be considered. It's ability to reduce sail quickly will be very useful indeed. I would use the sail plan from the -36, or move the forward mast forward, and rake both of them. The ability to fly a mizzen staysail, and even a geneker between the anchor crane and foremast will also be useful during long, lazy, off the wind passages. The jib, even roller reefing, is just a pain when at sea, or manuvering.


    I mention the forward berth simply because it is a solution to a problem. My wife insists on having a bed 'made up' whilst sailing, so grand babies can be placed on it like chord wood, or she can retire from the sun.

    Most sleeping is done at anchor, so a far forward berth is not such a bad idea. If you are at sea, the couch with a lee cloth is available, though I might prefer the floor beside the CB trunk.

    My practice with these type of boat is to place the masts where the accommodation would like them, in this case, far forward at the forward bulkhead, and on/through the bridge deck. Then adjust the sail areas appropriately.

    As an aside, wooden masts are probably cheaper, and perfectly satisfactory. If hollow square/rectangular, then you must use a track for the gaff and sail, just like Gilberj’s Meadowlark. If they are hollow round, ie ‘Birdsmouth’ then you can put the ‘gaff’ on parel beads, and lace the sail on with advantage. Definitely NO standing rigging, or stays please.

    i would personally use base mounted aluminum flag poles. Make up a welded steel bracket that distributes the loads across the forward most bulkhead, the local keelson, and some deck. The mizzen mast bracket could be a steel pole welded to flanges at keel and bridge deck, or better, attached to the narrow vertical CB case extension up to the bridge deck. Hot dip galvanize, and/or powder coat these brackets. The flagpoles base flange bolts direct to these exposed brackets, at or just above the deck in each case.
    Last edited by Sailor Alan; 05-25-2014 at 07:51 PM. Reason: Reading the wrong plans

  20. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,297

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    gilberj,

    Since this boat is about the same dimension as yours (plus centerboard intrusion) do you ever feel cramped in it with two or 3 people? I assume the Meadowlark was not designed with trailer-ability first and foremost in mind, and that he beam to length ratio had more to do with sailing ability, and sea-kindly characteristics. What I am saying is I wouldn't want to alter this design by making her beamier with the resulting boat an inferior sailor.

    Sailor Alan, thanks for your helpful input, a lot of good ideas. I have been intrigued by those fan boards but wondered how they would scale up to a larger boat. I've thought of a similiar design that would be more like a pocket knife with a single extension coming out of the primary board. Not as much space savings but maybe more robust.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  21. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    The Meadowlark is 33 x 8. This I think has more to do with the idea of sharpies needing to be long and narrow to perform well. There is eddy drag around the chines, particularly at low speeds and the narrow beam reduces this. The narrow beam also reduces the rooting, and sheering that can take place with a wider sharpie. In the 1940's people did not trailer 8000lb boats at all. These days many bigger pickup trucks will happily tow that sort of weight. We are comfortable cruising two people and a dog. A third person, like a grandchild would be fine. The cabin headroom is about 45" - 48". Some people would need full standing headroom, but...... Whimbrel is stiff and fast when there is any wind. I have sailed to windward under full sail in force 7 winds (~30 knots), though it was much more than we needed. Whimbrel is set up with 2 reefs on each of the main and the mizzen It takes less than a minute to tie in a reef I reef often and easily, not because the boat does not stand up, but because I sail just as well with less sail and I get well practiced at tying in the reef. These light easily driven boats do not need the horsepower to keep them moving in a blow. Because the volume of displacement is spread out along the length we do not pitch as much in a seaway as a deeper bellied keel boat. There is enormous reserve buoyancy with a light hull like these, and Whimbrel is very dry, throwing little spray. This is partly because when she heals over and lifts the chine out, the waves go under the chine and are reflected down, rather than out to the side (to be caught by the wind)as with a keel boat. There is no question that Whimbrel is by far the easiest boat to handle in a blow of any boat I have ever sailed in. I have worked to windward and also run off in F9 winds gusting over 40 knots. In light airs, particularly to windward we are slower than many other boats. There are a number of reasons, one being the eddies around the chine forward, another... the air coming off the main interferes with the mizzen. The biggest factor is the leeboard is a little too small, and at speeds less than 2 knots it will stall and create a lot of drag. Once we can get boat speed up to about 2.5 to 3 knots we start to move efficiently. Whimbrel is too stiff at times...at anchor with boat wakes, or similarly under way, in light wind conditions. If there is wind to lean on Whimbrel is steady and easy......Ultimately to me the measure of a serious cruising boat would be (1) weatherliness, the ability to keep going in really bad conditions. Often talked about as beating off a lee shore. We do not have to do this very often these days because we have excellent position knowledge, and very good weather forecasting, but still...... and (2) the ability to right itself reliably from a mast in the water knockdown. Whimbrel can do both these very well.........Your Seabright 33 should be comfortable for 2 or even 3 in the cabin even with the intrusion of the CB as long as you accept the reduced headroom, and having to move around with your head down. Once seated you will have a very comfortable space. She will not be as stiff as the Meadowlark....partly due to the rounded shape instead of the square shape, and partly because you will carry much less ballast. You will have to reef earlier. I would plan to increase the ballast but still you will just not be as stiff. This will be a good thing much of the time. Whether you go with the sprit booms or a foot boom you will want a good reefing system, You might use the battens, sort of like the Chinese junks do. I do think the narrower boat will ultimately perform better in most conditions, with the exception of running off in a breeze, where the beamier boat may be steadier. You have good area in the CB. I'd expect light wind performance to be good enough. I'd bet she will meet the criteria for a serious cruising boat listed above but I'd look into that. I am not sure whether Mr. Parker did a stability analysis. I really doubt whether Mr. Herreshoff ever did...just add ballast. Today there are all sorts of software available easily able to do a prediction immediately, so Mr. Parker probably has that information. Were I considering building a boat of this class, this design would be very high on my list.
    Last edited by gilberj; 05-26-2014 at 04:37 PM.

  22. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigadog View Post
    gilberj,

    Sailor Alan, thanks for your helpful input, a lot of good ideas. I have been intrigued by those fan boards but wondered how they would scale up to a larger boat. I've thought of a similiar design that would be more like a pocket knife with a single extension coming out of the primary board. Not as much space savings but maybe more robust.

    Rigadog,


    Thanks for the compliment.

    I dont think the 'fan' board is a practical solution for the -33 in this case.

    The lower of the two diagrams in post #10 is a sort of ‘pocket knife’ centerboard. http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?108984-How-to-retract-a-centerboard It is a good old design, and i have sailed with them a couple of times. The only minor issue is, lateral strain on the Center of effort of the CB turns up as torque (twist) in the CB to be resolved in the forward ‘spike’. This is not an issue if the CB is thick steel, but it needs to be considered.



    After my last post, i realized you could now put the cut down CB case AS the bunk front for the port or starboard settee berths. This will make a large difference to the ‘walkability’ in the boat. An offset CB seems to make little difference to performance, especially on such a flat bottom. This forward type CB control (see above) using the ‘pocket knife’ CB might be a slightly better choice in this case, less interference with the galley for instance.


    I am quite serious about adding another (vertical?) strake to the current top strake, for all sorts of reasons. It can still follow the present ‘sheer’ in fact it should. It is to reduce the ‘hull height’ to ‘cabin height’ ratio, not increase headroom as such. If you look at Meadowlark’s ‘sheer’ you will see how slight it is, still resulting in an elegant boat. I see Reuel’s Seabright 33 as modeling the traditional ‘sloops’ of the Caribbean, with their raked masts and loose footed club headed sails, a pretty and traditional look.
    My own boat (in NZ at the time), of similar dimensions, 5’ headroom i think, had a ‘soft dodger’ over the hatch so standing headroom even in the rain and spray. The other alternate might be a ‘booby hatch’ as used on Reuel’s Pilot Schooner’.


    Fast reefing is extremely important. I keep on about the loose footed main, and this is exceptionally easy and fast to reef. A line from the deck, up through the luff reef cringle, then back down and thence to the cockpit will pull in the luff. Another line, from the boom end, to the clew reef cringle, and back to the boom, will also lead to the cockpit. Hauling on these two lines will reef the boat almost instantly, its called “jiffy reefing’ for a reason, and give rapid peace of mind. You can then tie in the reef points at your leisure, we don't bother, though we do have an attached mainsail foot. I suggest 3 lines of reef points, you will need them. The slightly tender hull lines will heel and encourage reefing early, a very sound approach.


    Exactly the same reef system could be used for full batten, attached foot, sails like Wimberalls, though having sailed all my life with full batten mainsails, i am not sure i would recommend them for cruising. Too much potential for chafe i think.


    You are left with only one alternative design now, build or buy a Meadowlark!

  23. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    The idea of the offset CB brings to mind Ian Oughthreds Haiku with twin side by side high aspect ratio CB's. This might be something to consider here. By the way Haiku would also be on the short list.

  24. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sweden,Scilly Isles, Siberia
    Posts
    7,923

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    If 24in draft is ok, here is another option, the MK2 Waterwitch by Maurice Griffiths.



    I owned a Mk1, which had a shallow outside iron keel and steel bilge plates, and although not the best sailing boat i have owned, it was the best allround live-aboard. Construction could be in trad carvel, plywood and have also been drawn for steel. Heavy scantlings as designed to survive heavy beach landings if left on a drying mooring. Had to throw this in as an alternative to meadowlark, as the Waterwitch has standing headroom and several have circumnavigated.Good, well proven off-shore boat with shallow draught, and i think you can still get the plans on CD for 5 pounds from Eventides.org.

  25. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by gilberj View Post
    The idea of the offset CB brings to mind Ian Oughthreds Haiku with twin side by side high aspect ratio CB's. This might be something to consider here. By the way Haiku would also be on the short list.
    I agree, Haiku could be on the list, but it's very light. In my opinion, too light for the semi-live on duty proposed by Rigadog. Though heavy compared to Seabright-33, the Sharpie 36 from CMD could be on the list, though frankly the list seemed to have been narrowed down a few pages ago. Reuel Parker has some very nice Sharpie, Egret, and Presto inspired designs, but i have to assume Rigadog has studied and rejected them for various reasons.


    Rigadog, you may ignore the following discussion.


    Gilberj, I have been on teams doing initial design for several aircraft, including the Sonic Cruiser, and 787, but cannot describe myself as an aerodynamicist. In fact I know just enough to be dangerous. I was, and am, a materials specialist.


    Long, narrow, high aspect aero foils, and hydrofoils, are very efficient, but only over a rather narrow range of angle of attack (alpha angle). Increasing the camber of a particular airfoil will increase its angle of acceptance, whilst sacrificing ultimate speed. Ie, your lee boards need to be made variable camber, not increased in area. See my patent # 8511608. http://www.google.com/patents/US8511608 Just joking, but this kind of thing should be more common on race boards.


    Now, a 'delta' wing, analogous to the heavily raked keel leading edge of old "classic" keel boats, and the current Seabright 33, produces less lift per unit area, but over a wider range of angle of attack. I know from racing extreme boats with deep, narrow, high aspect ratio keels, they need careful handling, i.e. serious concentration on the part of the helmsman, to keep them in the "groove". The deep, narrow, high aspect ratio rudder is also extremely sensitive, too much angle and it stalls out, and increases drag dramatically. Too much of this, and you lose races. Equally, a stalled high aspect rudder has no directional control, and little drag, so lateral pressure on a bow will push the bow sideways, causing a broach. Not fun on a cruising boat. The wide chord rudder as on the Seabright-33 would ‘steer’ over a wider range of angle of attack, and even when ‘stalled’ should cause enough drag to possibly overcome lateral pressure on one side of the bow, buried in a wave. No broach.


    Now it gets tricky. I know airfoils in close proximity interfere with each other, called interference drag. Many biplanes suffered from this, and it is why biplanes like the "Bristol Fighter" had their lower wing well below the fuselage. I do not know how far apart these foils need to be to not interfere. I think i remember a ‘rule of thumb’ of two chords apart, but this may not be correct. Haiku's blades are fairley close, and may well cause 'interference drag', i dont know. I cannot tell from the drawings i have if Haiku's foils are asymmetric, they do not look toed in. Of course, if the foils are never down together, it's not an issue.


    Now, should these dual foils be asymmetric, and/or be towed in. I know you have described some benefit from your toed in, asymmetric boards, and this can be substantiated mathematically. It's just their efficiency should be very dependent on a narrow angle of attack. Not a bad thing, merely hard to sustain over time.
    Can you notice/see/feel this, and perhaps it might be a reason for them not being as effective at slow speeds, i.e. high slip angles? Remember, we are cruising here. Note; if true, increasing your foil area will make the boat slower!


    My opinion, and only my opinion, is that this type of cruising boat is better off with the long raked CB leading edge rather than the more efficient (per unit area only) deep vertical foil, even if we were to include a pair of them.


    Now, how effective would be a far forward CB be. http://www.intcanoe.org/iclife/hist/...anoe_yawl.html


    I assume, only assume, the lateral area is in 'balance' because the rudder area is included. My question here is, would the Seabright 33, or even your boat, work with a far forward board. To test this, one would have to mount your lee board up by your Samson post, not just forward a bit. Please do not try this, I will be building a canoe yawl this summer, and I can test it on that.


    My assumption is, move the CB slightly forward, boat is unbalanced. Move it far forward so the rudder is FORCED to be included, not neutral, and the boat might balance again, though with heavy and sensitive steering. There has to be a reason why all those canoe yawl's had a far forward CB, and then they seemed to stop.

  26. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Posts
    1,033

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Yet another thought - this Romp on the beach always intrigues me


  27. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Haiku, I believe is ballasted similarly to the 33. I had the same thoughts with regards the SBS CB's, but reasoned that the only time to use both would be in light conditions at slow speed. For this reason I would not recommend toe-in or asymmetrical boards.
    Most boats have some real salient lateral plane which resist sideways movement. traditional boats often had a very poor lifting qualities, but had great resistance to sideways forces. Light boats such as sailing dinghies had CB'S with a large enough area (a rule of thumb says at least 4% of the sail area). I note that Bolger always designed large CB'S and leeboards.
    My boards are as described asymmetrical and toed-in. This mostly compensates for the relatively small area. You are quite right in saying the high aspect fin is not ideal for all sailing conditions. It took me a little time to really suss this out. The leeboard stalls in the water at speeds below about 2knots. It is essentially dragging bodily sideways, with marginally effective resistance sideways. I can still work to windward, but perhaps I'll do better 65 to 70 degrees off the wind. It is quite noticeable when it begins to fly. My speed will jump from 2 kts to 4 kts almost instantly.
    Whimbrel steers easily and is not at all delicate or require fierce concentration. I mostly adjust things to sail hands-free. This may include a restricted tiller or it may be free. It mostly is accomplished with sheet adjustment, but sometimes I will change the swept back angle of the leeboards.
    I do raise the rudder at times for slow speeds, I find a marginally better control.

  28. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    The forward CB idea can work if the rudder is part of the lifting plan. Check out Little Cruiser along with Matt Leyden other designs at microcruising.com. I think the lifting foil needs to be moderately short in chord...my theory anyway. I have had more balance difficulties with full keel types.

  29. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by gilberj View Post
    The idea of the offset CB brings to mind Ian Oughthreds Haiku with twin side by side high aspect ratio CB's. This might be something to consider here. By the way Haiku would also be on the short list.
    Gilberj, Im sort of glad you notice stalling on your lee boards at slow speed, it means my knowledge of aerodynamics is not as bad as had been stated by “real” aerodynamicists at Boeing. Perhaps i should come up some time, and help make a ‘variable camber’ lee board, where the rear 1/3rd ‘bends’ or curves, to a deeper camber when commanded.

    picture;
    This one is roughly similar, though we used a different principle, and memory metal as actuators. The hand built prototype used a screw thread, simple enough.


    Rigadog,


    You might need to change your forum name if you build Seabright 33, it is no dog.


    I don't personally think the Haiku, at 3,500lb is heavy enough for the duty stated. We owned a sailboat with similar cross section, and about the same weight, and the movement got very old, very fast. OK for a young couple, or racing, but not night after night, even in completely protected (Hauraki Gulf) waters.


    My personal choice for the Seabright-33 keel would be to mount a single, cut down CB as the starboard saloon berth front. it would be mounted exactly between Bulkhead #2 and Bulkhead #5, and span the complete distance for strength and stability. In form and function, it would be similar to Paul Fishers "kittiwake Canoe", or "Rona Yawl". Mount the vertical ‘box’ for the ‘spike’ on the rear of the CB to rise into, against Bulkhead #5, again for strength. This will partially block the current entry into the head compartment. Now, make the “head’ compartment the full distance from BH #4 to BH #5, and turn the lav proper to face fore and aft. Now you have to step overt the CB case to enter the ‘head’ but this makes the entire head area separate for drainage, and hence a simple shower can be installed. For added privacy, put a door on at least part of the resultant space between the vertical part of the CB case, and BH #4. Your wife at least will appreciate this, even after a few days away from facilities.


    The displaced icebox was really far too small, it needs space for solid block ice, as well as the food stuffs. I might try to work one in under the port bridge deck, with an opening (for ice and cold drinks) in the forward port cockpit seat, and access to food through BH #5 under the bridge deck, and between the galley cupboards and the mizzen heel.


    i was originally keen on putting the Seabright 33’s CB under the forward bunk, but this is a bit radical, and i would not like someone else to ‘experiment’ this way. I will build my canoe this summer with such a board, and report back.

  30. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Not to hijack this discussion, and certainly not to suggest it as a contender, but i would like to bring up Bolgers Economy Seagoing Cruiser (ECS). http://hallman.org/bolger/isometrics...eagoingCruiser


    I have long been fascinated by this stern, and having the ‘run’ aft to the side only, and not vertical as well. A bit like the Boeing 777 tail-cone, and probably for the same reason. i believe it was ‘modeled’ after classic scandinavian “skerry’ cruisers, in profile only.


    In this case, i would fill the bunks to Port and Starboard with water as ballast, destroying its stowage space, and use a two stick rig. I wonder if it could stand more beam, or a bit of flair.


    Comments please, or not if it is off subject.


    Ive toyed with building a 16’ version, but would need to choose, canoe yawl, or 16’ ESC. EEK, as built, from pictures, seemed to have far too little ballast.

  31. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    BC Coast
    Posts
    3,434

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by Sailor Alan View Post
    Gilberj, Im sort of glad you notice stalling on your lee boards at slow speed, it means my knowledge of aerodynamics is not as bad as had been stated by “real” aerodynamicists at Boeing. Perhaps i should come up some time, and help make a ‘variable camber’ lee board, where the rear 1/3rd ‘bends’ or curves, to a deeper camber when commanded.

    picture;
    This one is roughly similar, though we used a different principle, and memory metal as actuators. The hand built prototype used a screw thread, simple enough
    I have from time to time thought of making articulated foils for sailing vessels. It is also possible to have a foil which could automatically adjust the angle of attack based on the force of the water flowing past. The engineering is not out of reach, though, other than scratching a wild hair or serious go fast applications, I am not sure it is worth the trouble. What I have is a fairly crude foil shape which except for the leading edge and trailing edge is flat on the outside face and curved on the inside face. I do not know if the builder used a NASA pattern, though I doubt it. It does work, you can watch the way the water moves around it. In the interest of improving the slow speed performance a little, I have added a form of Gurney Flap to the trailing edge. To be honest I am not sure I can detect a difference, it is marginally improved at best. I would be interested in seeing your photo's. My take is that the complication and expense is probably not worth it. I will continue to explore options, not at all closed to ideas, but I am currently experiencing limits or available time and money, and would rather be sailing than fussing in the farm shop spending all my spare moments ticking and turning on some vague idea that may improve Whimbrel's overall performance by perhaps a few per-cent. I am expecting to explore the gurney flap a little more.
    With regards to the accommodation of the 33, I say keep it simple and as open as possible. We can avoid watching someone doing those sorts of bodily functions, as appropriate for decorum. With this sort of sized boat, simplicity is the key,,,,,, at least to me. I am presuming you have a wife/partner, better half, bitter-half. squeeze. she may disagree with me on that....listen to her if you want her support for this project. For this sort of boat a cooler, and chilled food are not the norm. A block of ice lasts a few days, I say enjoy it while you and don't bother when you cannot have it when ice is not available. drink enough fluids, you will be fine.

  32. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,297

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Do yo mean bulkhead # 4 for the aft partition for the head? Bulkhead #5 is outside the cabin. I like the idea though. Also think the Haiku is a little light but very pretty. I had already decided to move the ice box where you think it belongs, good thinking!.
    A pair of fore and aft CBs would solve a lot of problems but I fear the designer might balk at the idea. It does create some drag and does add some complication, but you'd be able to balance the hull on any point of sail.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  33. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    3,297

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Good advice gilberj, I am still exploring the idea of widening the boat with Mr. Parker; waiting for him to get back to me... One issue with these Seabrights is using an outboard in a well, it can be done with a sliding transom and a short shaft motor but it's a bit tricky, but I don't think I want the expense and trouble of putting in a diesel.


    I'm considering going engineless and having a long sweep, but these are times when having a motor seems a good idea.
    If he ever drinks the brew of 10 tanna leaves, he will become a monster the likes of which the world has never seen



  34. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Sweden,Scilly Isles, Siberia
    Posts
    7,923

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    An outboard well that works is a far simpler proposition than the proposed alteration of centreboards IMO. Theres enough space aft to have a small OB on a lifting bracket, and a blanking plate, on a hinge or loose can be fitted with the engine raised if drag is a real concern.



    Moving a boat this size with a scull would be ok for docking, but a wee OB would make a lot of sense, it doesnt have to be a gas hog.

  35. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Reuel Parker's Sea Bright 33

    Quote Originally Posted by Rigadog View Post
    Do yo mean bulkhead # 4 for the aft partition for the head? Bulkhead #5 is outside the cabin. I like the idea though. Also think the Haiku is a little light but very pretty. I had already decided to move the ice box where you think it belongs, good thinking!.
    A pair of fore and aft CBs would solve a lot of problems but I fear the designer might balk at the idea. It does create some drag and does add some complication, but you'd be able to balance the hull on any point of sail.

    Good Discussion.


    Rigadog,


    Sorry about the error counting. I did mean between BH’s #2 and #4 for the CB, and BH #3 to #4 for the toilette wall.


    I personally would avoid the OB like the plague, but its a personal prejudice, based on bad experiences. Typically propellers lifting out of the water (bad installation) or failing to start when needed. Im not sure i like cutting the ‘keel’ back there, but i guess the whole bottom ‘plate’ is effectively holding the stern on. Not installing an engine now would certainly test your seamanship, and you would learn a lot about local tides. I'm given to understand adding an engine later can be difficult, unless the fitting and installation was done during build.


    I have seen some rather neat electric drives here in Seattle. One had a trolling motor attached to the rudder, another a trolling motor on the keel, and an inboard installation complete with stern gland etc. The batteries would contribute to ballast. Ive seen a generator (Honda?) in the forepeak, ostensibly used for maneuvering? Not sure if its practical in your case though.


    i race against several boats without engines, and though they ‘work’, they still have a hard time around marinas, and we regularly tow them back from a race after dark (the wind dies away).


    People have mentioned Romp etc. This is a much heavier boat, and the CB effectively divides the whole cabin longitudinally. It is a near copy of some of Tredwin, and Griffith's “Barge Yachts” and a really good example of the type. If you want to go this heavy, and remember boats cost by the pound (or kilo), the Waterwich, AS-29, and some other contenders enter the picture too.


    I think low draft must still be a big factor for your circumstances, so your choice still looks good. i agree with approaching Reuel about widening the boat, and the CB’s.


    Gilberj, i’m impressed you are trying a “Gurney Flap’. The only aerodynamic device not named after an airplane designer. It effectively moves the CE further aft on an old fashioned airfoil, turing it from an old, forward loaded airfoil like a Piper Cub’s, into a modern “aft loaded” airfoil. The McDonald Douglas developed and promoted trailing edge wedge does much the same thing. We did some work adding it to the 737 for the Max, but the airfoil was already fairly good from this POV.


    I think you should be out sailing, and avoid futzing so much. At low forward speeds, try sailing ‘off’ the wind slightly, as you suggested, if only for long enough to accelerate to 3+kt.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •