Wannabee Windows

[healhustler]

sunchaser wrote:Vertical windows ? Nah, you don't need them until you start shipping water. Then they are great, gravity works.

I don't mind vertical windows.* A lot of boats look very good with them.* It's the forward-slanted windows that I think look stupid on boats like ours.* I understand the reasoning behind them but nobody's gonna be taking a SeaSport or an American Tug*or whatever from California to New Zealand except on the back of a freighter.* That's why we call them wannabe windows.


__________________
C. Marin Faure
"La Pérouse"
1973 GB36-403 (grp)
Bellingham, WA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never thought of that, Marin. *Being the owner of one of the few boats that could be ordered with a "North Sea" style pilothouse (wannabee windows), I thought it was function related rather than style. *The Krogen Manatee 36 has got to be one of the most "style challenged" boats ever made, but I'm told that the wannabee windows were ordered principally by vets of the sea rather than the style conscious (I mean, who among the style conscious would ever order a Manatee to begin with).


Since I've been aboard and cruised on both styles, I asked myself what I liked about the wannabee windows over the standard style. *Here's a few of the things I noticed for our "tropical" applications, which may or may not apply to the PNY.


*Side opening windows and ventilation occur forward of the helm position and pilothouse doors instead of behind the helm and pilothouse doors. *Conventional style has no opening side windows forward of pilothouse doors.
* Overhead accessories or controls aren't poking you in the eye. *I'm tall, and the shelf molded into my friends boat with standard configuration hits me right in the forehead.
*With the standard configuration, I couldn't practice my habit of leaning over the wheel to spot pilings as they pass from bow to amidships (collision with windshield).
*Glare from sun and water feel reduced, and here in Miami, the lower exposure to sun and temperature of gauges, controls and the helm area is an obvious benefit.
*Longer roof line makes for a different perception of space in the Pilothouse, and your breath is not fogging the top of your windshield when damp.
*The extra length of the roof allows for easy installation of solar panels (I have four but could do eight) and a host of other accessories.
*Rain and spray blow down the windshield (instead of up).
*No windshield instrument reflection at night. *(Nice on evening cruises or ICW at night).
*Fan defroster can be blown from dash or overhead onto windshield without the windshield angle directing the air into your eyes, and can also be directed sideways to blow moisture out forward side windows.
*With casual use of Rain-ex, wipers are all but a waste, even in spray and headwind.
*Even with regular glass, eye strain in sunlight seems less through windshield than through tinted glass on sides.


AND, a few disadvantages.


*Mast on North-Sea style has to be made higher to run stays to bow pulpit, conventional style doesn't have to overcome the extra forward intrusion of roof.
*Can't eye constellations or stars well from behind wheel. *Much better in conventional style.
*Natural light is better for chart reading with conventional style.
*Perhaps the conventional style has an aerodynamic advantage, not sure about this.
*Style break with North-Sea style??


If you look at the style differences here, you'll see that the angles of the forward leaning vs. the backward leaning styles are pretty extreme, and so the advantages and disadvantage may be more extreme as well. *I know the style is called "North Sea", but we fell in love with the North-Sea version in Hong Kong for its tropical applications. *It never occurred to me that there could be wannabees out there, but such choices would likely never involve a Krogen Manatee anyway. *Interesting subject, by the way. *Thanks for bringing it up.








-- Edited by healhustler on Sunday 9th of January 2011 01:43:40 PM

 

[markpierce]

Something is wrong here!* Don't forward-slanting pilothouse windows require a*shallow dash?

-- Edited by markpierce on Sunday 9th of January 2011 02:12:56 PM

 

[sunchaser]

Mark* -* The short answer is no. The bigger the boat, the more space available to do things.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Fwd slant takes space from the "dash" and back slant from above. Personally I have vertical windows w overhanging roof line. That seems best to me but I agree basically w Marin that the fwd slant looks stupid. There are many many exceptions like hustler's Manatee. That very long slab like cabin front dos'nt fly well but it makes the fwd slant windows look better. The Coot looks fine as the slant is subtle. The Sundowner looks silly mainly because the BACK windows are also slanted bas akwards. I just went through a 5 min survey of the forum and see there are VERY few fwd slant windows. I was surprised.
One thing I'm sure about is that when there's a big sea coming aboard over the bow the fwd slant windows are BAD. The glass is then at right angles to the onrushing water maximizing the impact and maximizing the potential for window failure. I don't see how anyone can dispute that. As I said * *FAD.

 

[Forkliftt]

My opinion is that forward slanting windows look great! Not to mention better visibility when glare or night cruising are happening. I would have forward slanting windows in a heartbeat!

 

[markpierce]

nomadwilly wrote:

*
One thing I'm sure about is that when there's a big sea coming aboard over the bow the fwd slant windows are BAD. The glass is then at right angles to the onrushing water maximizing the impact and maximizing the potential for window failure. I don't see how anyone can dispute that.

Eric, that's not obvious to me.* If the boat is bow-down when the wave breaks, the forward-leaning windows would be facing somewhat downward, somewhat more than*vertical windows.* Also, when a wave breaks, it begins to fall within a short distance.* The waves'*"angle of attack" on the pilothouse would depend on the amount of pitch of the boat, distance from pilothouse to bow, and nature of the wave.

I was in a hurricane in the North Atlantic on a cruise ship.* The seas were head-on, and from the 14th-deck observation lounge,*wave water appeared to be falling like heavy rain*on the slightly*backward-facing windows.

Coots have 10mm tempered forward windows.

PS -- I don't consider the Coot's dash to be shallow despite the windows' angle.

*


-- Edited by markpierce on Sunday 9th of January 2011 04:06:07 PM

 

[O C Diver]

nomadwilly wrote:One thing I'm sure about is that when there's a big sea coming aboard over the bow the fwd slant windows are BAD. The glass is then at right angles to the onrushing water maximizing the impact and maximizing the potential for window failure. I don't see how anyone can dispute that. As I said FAD.

Eric, have to disagree with you on this. At the speeds we are traveling when green water is coming over the bow, the water is coming down by the time the boat drives into it hitting the windshield. If you think about it, the water is mostly going up and down. The boat drives into it. Now if the boat is going 15+ knots into a wave it might be different.

Ted

*

 

[markpierce]

Hmmm.* The angle of the forward superstructure on the "La Pérouse" 1973 GB36-403 would seem to channel waves upward*toward the pilothouse windows.

 

[Nomad Willy]

To a certain extent the water comes down on the boat/windows but it must pass over the fore-cabin/deck. The fore-cabin/deck are rather horizontal so the bulk of water movement is aft. It's hard to conceive of a wave so monstrous that it's crest comes mostly down on the boat.

No I think the water will be mostly moving aft and the further a window is slanter aft the less force the wave can impart to the window. Think of the bow scooping up water as it moves fwd into a big (10 or 15') sea. Waves don't jump up and down*** ...they mostly just rush fwd. Nawwww ..sorry Ted I just can't relate. I know there are those that think slanted fwd in this regard is better but I'm not one of them.
Mark,
You say "channel waves upward". What part of the "fwd superstructure" could channel waves upward??? All the superstructure surfaces are horizontal except the sides of the fore-cabin. I don't see any way water could be channeled upward except the small surface on the front of the for-cabin. And even if the water could come from above the fwd slant window would trap water causing lots of pressure on the glass** ..exactly what you don't want.

 

[markpierce]

nomadwilly wrote:

Mark,
You say "channel waves upward". What part of the "fwd superstructure" could channel waves upward??? All the superstructure surfaces are horizontal except the sides of the fore-cabin. I don't see any way water could be channeled upward except the small surface on the front of the for-cabin. And even if the water could come from above the fwd slant window would trap water causing lots of pressure on the glass** ..exactly what you don't want.

I was referring to the boat pictured in healhustler's avatar.*(Edit -- I note that healhustler has since changed the*boat's identity in his signature, from a*GB to a Manatee.* Obviously, I don't know*the various boats well.)* *The*superstructure's roof in front of the pilothouse is at an angle to the horizon (approximately perpendicular to the forward-leaning windows), not horizontal to the normal waterline*of most boats.

Why wouldn't one want to channel water down, working with rather than against gravity?* Why is a forward-leaning bow a good idea*but not a forward-leaning window?

*


-- Edited by markpierce on Sunday 9th of January 2011 11:04:03 PM

 

[Arctic Traveller]

A commercial passenger boat I use to run (The Yukon Queen) has forward slanting windows, and I loved them.* The main reason was the lack of glare when running at night.* As for being more or less resistant to having a wave blowing them out, I don't know which is better.* I do know that while crossing the Gulf of Alaska, a huge wave did take out the forward slanting pilot house windows (on the second deck no less)* I'm not sure that forward slanting, vertical, backwards slanting or any other type of window would have made a difference.* When your number is up, it's up......................Arctic Traveller

 

[O C Diver]

nomadwilly wrote:

To a certain extent the water comes down on the boat/windows but it must pass over the fore-cabin/deck. The fore-cabin/deck are rather horizontal so the bulk of water movement is aft. It's hard to conceive of a wave so monstrous that it's crest comes mostly down on the boat.

No I think the water will be mostly moving aft and the further a window is slanter aft the less force the wave can impart to the window. Think of the bow scooping up water as it moves fwd into a big (10 or 15') sea. Waves don't jump up and down ...they mostly just rush fwd. Nawwww ..sorry Ted I just can't relate. I know there are those that think slanted fwd in this regard is better but I'm not one of them.
Mark,
You say "channel waves upward". What part of the "fwd superstructure" could channel waves upward??? All the superstructure surfaces are horizontal except the sides of the fore-cabin. I don't see any way water could be channeled upward except the small surface on the front of the for-cabin. And even if the water could come from above the fwd slant window would trap water causing lots of pressure on the glass ..exactly what you don't want.

Eric, I can see the wave coming over the bow and hitting the pilot house windows on your boat, but not making it all the way up to an upper level wheelhouse such as the* Manatee.

*

Ted

 

[Phil Fill]

Wannabee windows I like that.* Sound like another technical boat term to added to the list.*

 

[Nomad Willy]

Well there's a nice ramp for the "wave" to race up. I've looked at a number of fwd slant windshields since my last post and I've decided they look ok to fine to good depending on the design. I've even decided the Sundowner looks good. Must have been something I ate. Can't say I'll be wanting wannabee windows but I'm at least neutral. With big waves over the windshield I'll still take the slanted BACK windows.

 

[O C Diver]

nomadwilly wrote:

Well there's a nice ramp for the "wave" to race up. I've looked at a number of fwd slant windshields since my last post and I've decided they look ok to fine to good depending on the design. I've even decided the Sundowner looks good. Must have been something I ate. Can't say I'll be wanting wannabee windows but I'm at least neutral. With big waves over the windshield I'll still take the slanted BACK windows.

Occasionally my opinion changes, but it's usually Barley-Pop induced.

Ted

*

 

[markpierce]

For all the passion and disagreement, note that none of you (or I)*listed the angle of bridge/pilothouse windows as an important factor in selecting their trawlers.* Reference thread What factors were/are critical in selecting your trawler?

There seem to be several "camps" on this subject.* (1) their ugliness overrides any benefit, (2) they are "fashion statements" with no practical value for "little boats" like ours, (3) they're are less safe than straight or back-ward sloping windows, and (4) attractive or ugly, they have worthwhile benefits.

-- Edited by markpierce on Sunday 9th of January 2011 10:52:38 PM

 

[Arctic Traveller]

Eric, I can see the wave coming over the bow and hitting the pilot house windows on your boat, but not making it all the way up to an upper level wheelhouse such as the* Manatee.


In the photo, the smaller boat is the one the windows blew in on.* Note how high up the bridge windows are.....................Arctic Traveller

 

[Carey]

OK, here's the deal. I guess I'm a part time wannabe, because IMHO the forward slope is, often a good fit with a boat design, and also very practical as to keeping rain off the glass, and allowing more usable space on the dash. No, I wouldn't choose the "Wannabe" style for a low profile, offshore boat. That's my four cents worth. You are not getting me for a measly two cents!!!

-- Edited by Carey on Sunday 9th of January 2011 11:00:08 PM

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

The tug that I operate has wannabbee windows in it. They are often hard to see out of ,more to do with the size than the slant. In March of 2008 (before I was Capt), this boat towed the aircraft carrier John F Kennedy from Norfolk Va to Philadelpia. The wind came up over 50 kts for 30-40 hours off the eastern shore of VA/Maryland. The Capt told me he had to take everything in the teeth because there was no turning that ship in those conditions. None of the windows blew out and the tow continued. He believed that the angle of the windows helped knock down the green
water weight against the glass.

 

[O C Diver]

Sailor of Fortune wrote:

The tug that I operate has wannabbee windows in it. They are often hard to see out of ,more to do with the size than the slant. In March of 2008 (before I was Capt), this boat towed the aircraft carrier John F Kennedy from Norfolk Va to Philadelpia. The wind came up over 50 kts for 30-40 hours off the eastern shore of VA/Maryland. The Capt told me he had to take everything in the teeth because there was no turning that ship in those conditions. None of the windows blew out and the tow continued. He believed that the angle of the windows helped knock down the green
water weight against the glass.

Jack,
Hope they let us have the Kennedy for an artificial reef.*

They will be sinking the Aurthur Radford as a reef this spring off of Delaware. Everything in the Philadelphia yard is either destin for scrap or reefing when they alocate the money. Jack, are you going to be towing the Radford out in the spring?

Ted

*

 

[Phil Fill]

Weather they are backward or forward slant the windows have to be strong/thick enough to withstand the water and winds.* I our windows are 3/8 shatter resistant glass. So if the windows and frame are not thick/strong enough it does not matter which way the windows are slanted. I would prefer wannabee windows as it would make the Eagle more uglier than she already is.*

-- Edited by Phil Fill on Monday 10th of January 2011 07:59:46 AM

 

[magicbus]

charles wrote:

Let the record reflect that a significant number of coastal shrimp boats, commercial variety, utilize forward slanted windshields.
Draw your own conclusiions from the guys who make a living out there.

I wasn't aware I was making a fashion statement when I got wannabe windows. *My main thoughts were along the lines of the commercial boats earning a living in my home town. *With regards to green water striking the forward-leaning PH windows, I believe this is one of the purposes of the Portuguese Bridge - to deflect green water.

Dave

 

[Nomad Willy]

Whatever the window configuration if one is considerably concerned about taking seas over the bow the fwd pilothouse you see on almost all trawlers should be dismissed.
Serious deep sea vessels have the pilothouse aft.
Dave,
I don't know but I'm sure your'e right and if the boat is too small for the Portuguese Bridge a well designed hydraulic brake could be used in it's place.
Phil Fill,
" our windows are 3/8 shatter resistant glass." Shatter proof or not tempered glass is MUCH stronger. I assume you refer to safety glass w sandwiched in plastic sheet.
But if the tempered glass does break one could have 137 glass knives in the face.

 

[Phil Fill]

The have that clear plastic in between the two pains of glass, like auto wind shields*so they will not shatter.* Besides we have*a high 10 ft bow and a portuguese bridge to protect, and*wide brim.* Back on PMM we had this discussion sever times about slant and thickness of windows.*

Since several 58 ft Roughwater have crossed oceans and cruise up down the coast*the glass seems to be acceptable.*


**

 

[RickB]

"Serious deep sea vessels have the pilothouse aft."



-- Edited by RickB on Monday 10th of January 2011 12:47:22 PM

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:One thing I'm sure about is that when there's a big sea coming aboard over the bow the fwd slant windows are BAD. The glass is then at right angles to the onrushing water maximizing the impact and maximizing the potential for window failure.

*

Eric--- I think it's the other way round.* The skipper of the RNLI boat I went out on in the UK, pictured below, told me the reason their boats (and other vessels that work in rough water) have forward-raked or reverse-raked pilothouse windows is that when green water comes aboard it is coming straight at or curving down onto the front windows.* Raked-back windows, like the ones on the majority of our recreational boats including GB, position the glass at an angle where it can be hit square on by this water.* Now a GB (like most other recreational "trawlers") isn't going to be going fast enough for the forward motion of the boat to increase the force of the impact but the wind could accelerate the water into the glass.* And boats like the USCG and RNLI rescue boats are very often going fast.

In any event, the reverse-raked windows, which on a boat intended to do serious work in serious water (in other words, NOT a coastal recreational trawler) are made of very heavy glass, deflect the impact of the solid water.* To accomplish the same thing with normally raked windows you'd have to slant them way, way back. and that could cause all sorts of space and headroom problems.

Add in the benefit of glare reduction and whatnot and the reverse-raked windows make all sorts of sense on boats that encounter rough sea conditions on a regular basis.* In this case it's a form follows function thing.

On a recreational coastal cruiser they are little more than image statements in my opinion.* True, they provide more overhead room for overhead-mounted electronics but that position seems to be falling out of favor-- at least with manufacturers--- as a place to mount electronics, and given the move toward all-in-one boxes these days the number of electronic components one needs to provide the desired navigation and communications functions is shrinking every day it seems.* So the "more room overhead" rationalization doesn't strike me as being much of an advantage in my opinion.* And based on the comments from most of the posters in another thread on this forum, mounting electronics overhead at a helm station is not viewed as a Good Idea by very many people.

The anti-glare aspect of reverse-raked windows could be an advantage, depending on how the boat's display screens are mounted.* But I believe that any glare problem on a normal, aft-slanted windshield or a vertical windshield is due to poor display mounting choices, not an automatic function of slanting glass backwards.* We don't make a habit of running at night but the few times we have there has been no glare whatsoever on our normally raked windows from our various displays, so reverse-raked windows would have no advantage whatsoever on our boat* All our displays are mounted in such a way that they are totally invisible to the windshield glass.* During the day we run with a big, bright, open chartbook at the helm.* Neither it nor anything else reflects in the glass regardless of the light direction or intensity.

As a side note, a number of airplanes in the 1930s were first made with reverse-raked windshields.* Two I am quite familiar with were the Boeing Model 80 tri-motor and the Boeing Model 247.* The reverse-raked windshields were thought to help reduce glare, and in each case they were elminated almost immediately for drag and airflow reasons and the aft-raked glass proved to create no problems with glare.* The photo is of an early 247.



-- Edited by Marin on Monday 10th of January 2011 01:27:05 PM

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

OC Diver
I don't know if the JFK will be scrapped or not . The tug that I run did tow the carrier that is sunk off of the Florida pan handle (I think the America?). I'm told that it costs 20-22 million dollars to
sink a carrier.
If one does come out on the east coast, we will probably be involved.I wasn't aware that the Radford is being sunk this spring.

 

[O C Diver]

Sailor of Fortune wrote:

OC Diver
I don't know if the JFK will be scrapped or not . The tug that I run did tow the carrier that is sunk off of the Florida pan handle (I think the America?). I'm told that it costs 20-22 million dollars to
sink a carrier.
If one does come out on the east coast, we will probably be involved.I wasn't aware that the Radford is being sunk this spring.

The one on the pan handle (Pensacola area) is the USS Oriskany (CV/CVA-34); I have dove it. My mistake, JFK was decommissioned 2007 and looks like it will now go to Boston as a museum or memorial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_John_F._Kennedy_(CV-67)

Radford is 2 years late for sinking; cleaned and almost ready to go. There is still a short list to satisfy the EPA. We did the site survey where it will be sunk last spring. Radford cost was $600K split between MD, DE, NJ, and the Navy.

Ted

*

 

[Nomad Willy]

Ha Ha Ha Ha*Thats good Rick. Caught w my pants down * ...way down.


Marin,
I didn't notice the fwd raked windows on the 247 untill I ckicked on it. Wow. That must have caused all manner of heavy turbulence on the rudder.


-- Edited by nomadwilly on Monday 10th of January 2011 06:44:19 PM

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:Marin,

I didn't notice the fwd raked windows on the 247 untill I ckicked on it. Wow. That must have caused all manner of heavy turbulence on the rudder.

No, I don't think it did.**Both planes were put into production and sold to airlines and operated in passenger service*with the reverse-raked windshield panels.* The design made it*through flight testing with no problems so I have to assume they did not cause any control issues.

They probably caused some drag issues, however, and there may have been other reasons for their discontinuation in later versions of the planes.* They certainly LOOK draggy, don't they?