Canoe (or double end) boats efficient?

[Amadeus]

Sea Spirit 60

The Cooper Sea Spirit 60 is an interesting example of a canoe stern with a large swim platform. A Pantograph door in the stern bulwark makes for easy access. A relatively large rudder allows for good control in following seas.

 

[Nomad Willy]

I don’t see a canoe stern. I see a rounded transom and swim step.

Any pics of the stern that count?
Like below the WL?
The more I look at it the more it looks FD as told by the wake. Is so she’s probably over driven in the picture.

I love that boat. The one I was on several years ago had an all Douglas Fir interior. No dark cave-like colors like in our boat.
I don’t remember what the actual hull looked like. I think I saw pics later but?
And I’m not generally attracted to big boats but this one was very special in some way that I can’t put my finger on.

 

[Amadeus]

Eric,

Point taken. I've not seen the underbody, but I like the swim platform. Last year I tried to buy a sistership and we went up to Charlotte to inspect the boat. I was very impressed. Not sure about the bulbous bow, but I understand it is a very seakindly hull from a previous owner and from the builder. 7,000 nm range at 7 knots, so it is pretty efficient. I'm trying to work out buying this one.

"Big boat" is relative. We just commissioned a deep submersible aboard a 145 meter Lurssen. That thing is 475 feet long. Glad I don't have to pay that fuel bill. I reckon the boat costs in excess of $15 million per year to operate.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Amadeus,
Thanks for your input.
One thing’s obvious .. the SS 60 isn’t going to make 7,000 miles driven as in the picture.

I may know what you’re seeing in the boat but again I can’t identify it. That’s likely unusual for me.

 

[Hippocampus]

Here’s a start
https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/double-ended-vs-transom-for-fuel-efficiency.40407/page-2
But to really understand this you need to study naval architecture. There are current multiple computer modeling programs such as Shipflow that NAs play with. Modeling is concerned with the entire hull and placement of weight. You need at least a cursory understanding of the physics involved and the terms used to understand the physics. That is well beyond a single or even multiple citations. Still as I said earlier the NAs on this site point out what I’ve been saying in my crude amateur way.
Need to consider the total design. What’s in the water is what’s most important.
Concessions necessary to allow a canoe stern in the plans doesn’t make it practical for modern design.
No advantage in efficiency due to this one feature and in fact in most designs it is a detriment.
Throughout this discussion there’s been no discussion of the “canoe body”. That’s the hull minus appendages. Not rocker. Nor transition layer nor the most of the other factors that make for a sea kindly, efficient hull.
There are several books about the basic elements of naval architecture. Some sources are available through USN and library of Congress but you need to buy most of them. I’m an amateur. I understand a little from what I’ve been able to glean from reading about naval architecture but I’m not a naval architect. Think it’s just as important to know what you don’t know as know what you do. This thread has been opinion on both sides as from what I can gather it’s reasonable to assume none of us are naval architects. Still I know in modern ship, sail boat and power boat design unless the client specifically asks for it no current naval architect uses a canoe stern. Surely that tells you something.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Some think the very very canoe shaped Viking ship crewed by Vikings was the reason they were considered around the world in their time and beyond to be masters of the sea. Their ships were a huge part of the reasons for what they were able to do.
The water craft in the PNW experienced much the same results w mostly the same hull.

 

[mvweebles]

Here’s a start
https://www.boatdesign.net/threads/double-ended-vs-transom-for-fuel-efficiency.40407/page-2
But to really understand this you need to study naval architecture. There are current multiple computer modeling programs such as Shipflow that NAs play with. Modeling is concerned with the entire hull and placement of weight. You need at least a cursory understanding of the physics involved and the terms used to understand the physics. That is well beyond a single or even multiple citations. Still as I said earlier the NAs on this site point out what I’ve been saying in my crude amateur way.
Need to consider the total design. What’s in the water is what’s most important.
Concessions necessary to allow a canoe stern in the plans doesn’t make it practical for modern design.
No advantage in efficiency due to this one feature and in fact in most designs it is a detriment.
Throughout this discussion there’s been no discussion of the “canoe body”. That’s the hull minus appendages. Not rocker. Nor transition layer nor the most of the other factors that make for a sea kindly, efficient hull.
There are several books about the basic elements of naval architecture. Some sources are available through USN and library of Congress but you need to buy most of them. I’m an amateur. I understand a little from what I’ve been able to glean from reading about naval architecture but I’m not a naval architect. Think it’s just as important to know what you don’t know as know what you do. This thread has been opinion on both sides as from what I can gather it’s reasonable to assume none of us are naval architects. Still I know in modern ship, sail boat and power boat design unless the client specifically asks for it no current naval architect uses a canoe stern. Surely that tells you something.

Hmmm....... This seems to suggest there is a slight efficiency penalty for a transom design, but the tradeoff is worth it (below is quoted text).

For the most part, boats (power and sail) were designed with a nod to utility. I'd guess that somewhere along the 1980s it became clear that the designs needed to sell themselves at boat show docks and glossy magazine ads. As the quote from TAD (Robert's?) suggests, this means transom for load carrying and luxurious deck space. Nothing wrong with that, but it's a far cry from some sort of magic bullet for speed and efficiency.



"My PL series all have transoms for numerous reasons, for pitch damping, to support a higher than "displacement" speed, to allow space and floatation for the far aft engine room, to increase deck and interior volume within a given length, and to allow easy and roomy water/dock access. The minimal drag increase is worth it in my view because the boat really spends 90% of her life not under way......."

 

[BrianG]

Hmmm....... This seems to suggest there is a slight efficiency penalty for a transom design, but the tradeoff is worth it below is quoted text).

It says exactly that and also that transoms are better in a slip and slip is where 90% of boating takes place.

 

[Amadeus]

Amadeus,
I may know what you’re seeing in the boat but again I can’t identify it. That’s likely unusual for me.

Eric, I think the boat has character. I love the no-nonsense classic look so different from contemporary tupperware. The main lounge area has great visibility and is full of light. The raised pilothouse has a special ambiance, and indeed the joinery throughout is terrific. Nicely done galley and the day head across is an appreciated amenity. Quality furnishings throughout with, again, that classic look. The engine room layout is good even if the overhead clearance is a bit lower than optimum. Everything well laid out and clearly defined. Well engineered systems, great storage, good access. Overall just a comfortable ambiance. I'd have to buy one before I could find something to bitch about...

 

[Hippocampus]

Tad, I believe, is Tad Roberts who is a naval architect. He doesn’t say that. I’ve read mostly about sailboats. Unlike power displacement boats they function at various heel angles and speeds so represent a different problem. However, it’s how much turbulence a hull leaves as it passes through the water. How much suction. The wake you see at the surface doesn’t disclose what’s going on below in its entirety. An hull exit with smooth, attached flow until it leaves creates less drag. So it’s what’s in the water not above that’s important. However, the sea is rarely flat. Boats slow dramatically when they hobbyhorse. Boats become unmanageable if the stern kicks around . The Willard 40 is my idea of how to best design a canoe hull for a small boat. It has a minimum of overhang so maximizes hull speed for LOA. It has fairly empty ends with a good gyradius. However in order to achieve these favorable characteristics it gives up load carrying ability. Compare these numbers
W40
LOA 40
LWL 36
Displacement 33000
HP 115

N40
LOA 39’9”
LWL35’5”
Displacement 55000
HP 105

So in actual use from what I can gather the transom stern is moving much more weight with similar HP and nmpg while paying no penalty in sea kindliness nor safety. I believe that’s efficiency.

Now look under water. Most transom sterns are associated with a smooth hull and no trailing edge except the rudder. The trailing edge is brought to the surface.you see this in the wake. To allow a balanced hull varying degrees of rocker are seen. Canoe sterns achieve the same balance by mimicking the lines of the forward half of the hull to some degree which often leads to a trailing edge in the hull. So the classic redningkoite has flow on the sides of the hull. Whereas the transom on the sides in the front and bottom at the back. Both work. But the second configuration allows greater displacement without a penalty in LOA. I apologize for my lack of knowledge to explain this with correct terminology.
The issue of reserve buoyancy is key. It allows a mannerly boat. It prevents hobbyhorsing. It allows additional displacement. It allows a good metacenter and gyradius. The Willard design does this brilliantly but at the expense of displacement and useful ability to carry weight when compared to the N40. The N40 isn’t a particularly efficient hull as concessions seem to have been made to maximize function as a cruiser. But if you define efficiency as energy needed to move a given weight in a boat of a given size a given distance and be safe you see why they aren’t in current production.

 

[mvweebles]

Tad, I believe, is Tad Roberts who is a naval architect. He doesn’t say that. I’ve read mostly about sailboats. Unlike power displacement boats they function at various heel angles and speeds so represent a different problem. However, it’s how much turbulence a hull leaves as it passes through the water. How much suction. The wake you see at the surface doesn’t disclose what’s going on below in its entirety. An hull exit with smooth, attached flow until it leaves creates less drag. So it’s what’s in the water not above that’s important. However, the sea is rarely flat. Boats slow dramatically when they hobbyhorse. Boats become unmanageable if the stern kicks around . The Willard 40 is my idea of how to best design a canoe hull for a small boat. It has a minimum of overhang so maximizes hull speed for LOA. It has fairly empty ends with a good gyradius. However in order to achieve these favorable characteristics it gives up load carrying ability. Compare these numbers
W40
LOA 40
LWL 36
Displacement 33000
HP 115

N40
LOA 39’9”
LWL35’5”
Displacement 55000
HP 105

So in actual use from what I can gather the transom stern is moving much more weight with similar HP and nmpg while paying no penalty in sea kindliness nor safety. I believe that’s efficiency.

Now look under water. Most transom sterns are associated with a smooth hull and no trailing edge except the rudder. The trailing edge is brought to the surface.you see this in the wake. To allow a balanced hull varying degrees of rocker are seen. Canoe sterns achieve the same balance by mimicking the lines of the forward half of the hull to some degree which often leads to a trailing edge in the hull. So the classic redningkoite has flow on the sides of the hull. Whereas the transom on the sides in the front and bottom at the back. Both work. But the second configuration allows greater displacement without a penalty in LOA. I apologize for my lack of knowledge to explain this with correct terminology.
The issue of reserve buoyancy is key. It allows a mannerly boat. It prevents hobbyhorsing. It allows additional displacement. It allows a good metacenter and gyradius. The Willard design does this brilliantly but at the expense of displacement and useful ability to carry weight when compared to the N40. The N40 isn’t a particularly efficient hull as concessions seem to have been made to maximize function as a cruiser. But if you define efficiency as energy needed to move a given weight in a boat of a given size a given distance and be safe you see why they aren’t in current production.

Willards are out of production for reasons unrelated to hull efficiency. The W40 traces its roots to a 1950s Wm Garden 34 design that was stretched to 36 feet - the W40. Designs from the Holy Trinity of west coast Naval architects - Monk, Defever, and Garden - were indeed wrought from experience vs computer modeling. Their recreational trawler style yachts incorporated these experiences. I believe it is a mistake to discount their designs as well intended but obsolete. They are proven hull forms with a deep and storied histories of truly knowledgeable owners who plied difficult waters with not much beyond seamanship skills carried between their ears.

I like the N40 a lot. But it's a huge leap to venerate it and use sales market share as evidence. Their buyers are typically long on desire and short on experience and a bit of disposable income. Nothing wrong with that but that alone doesn't make the boat anything more than well marketed. PAE has done a great job of developing a lifestyle brand in boats. I applaud them, an frankly, I liked doing business with them. I found their principals decent people who genuinely cared about their product and their customers. And they build a helluva product.

But at the end of the day, the N40 was successful where the W40 was not for two reasons. First, the same reaction your wife had when she saw the W40 - too small. Sitting at a trawler fest dock, simply no comparison. Second, the W40 was built in the good old USA. The N40 production was moved to China and base price was lowered to $399k which was around the same as the W40 at the time.

I have 1000s of offshore miles on both the N40 and the W40. They are both good boats, the N40 is better engineered and better built. But it's not more efficient, it carries a lot more stuff, which is important to people, especially people entering trawlers later in life when they are trying to shoe-horn a household full of stuff into a boat. Again, not a fault, just an observation. The N40 has a household refrigerator. The N40 had a Norcold. 'Nuff said on why the N40 outsold. The W40 50:1.

All I can tell you is I took a W40 from Long Beach to La Paz, roughly 1000 nms. She burned something like 1.3 gph and averaged 7.4 kts. I've taken a couple N40s from Dana Point CA to PNW, roughly similar distance, and averaged about the same speed but fuel burn was 2.5 gph. To compensate, the N40 carries almost 1000 gallons of diesel.

If this is about efficiency - and this thread is, that's the answer. Double ender or some variant is really efficient, which is more or less what Tad Robert said in his post.

The only reason no one builds round ended sterns is no one wants to buy them, not because they aren't a solid design. Technology has lowered the bar for new entrants to cruising. They either don't know or don't care about design attributes beyond what rose-tinted reviews tell them. They walk on a boat and want a capacious interior. That's it. Crowd-sourced design doesn't care much about the Naval architecture.

In the end, the N40 is an amazing boat. I'd own one in a heartbeat. But that doesn't make it efficient. Just makes it popular.

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

Good post Peter. Still didn’t address the math. The N40 displaces 55k the W40 displaces 33k
Or 0.6 of what the N40 displaces. So for displacement efficiency just about the same. I don’t have your miles but do have over 40k in blue water entirely off the shelf outside helicopter range on sail and was 7 year international cruiser without the access to the myriad services easily available to me while in the north east. So I’m not much moved by marketing hype. Wife lived with me and her interest is in what works as a liveaboard on anchor not what works in a slip. She actually has more experience than me as a motorboat liveaboard due to life as a child. My only issue with her cramming things on the boat concerns decorative pillows. At one point we had over ten scattered around. But living on a boat is very different than a delivery or passage. Needs are very different. Living on a boat is also very different than occasion use. BTW we don’t want household appliances on the next one. Prefer drawers purpose built for marine use. Prefer as much as possible DC rather than AC appliances. Don’t like induction nor electric stoves either.

 

[psneeld]

Minor correction, while Tad Roberts might be a helluva boat designer...I think it was pointed out that he is not a naval architect.

My memory is weak......and it may not amount to a hill of beans...but you may want to verify it.

If true...maybe boat design (for sale) is less about infinite technical issues and more about what people will buy.

I get a lot of people who think my boat is salty...yet it is uncomfortable in almost anything but flat water.

 

[rslifkin]

I get a lot of people who think my boat is salty...yet it is uncomfortable in almost anything but flat water.

A lot of people don't realize that looks don't always equate to function. And with boats, there's another dimension to the problem. Just because the boat can do or handle something doesn't mean it's any bit pleasant to operate it (or even be on board) in those conditions.

 

[mvweebles]

Good post Peter. Still didn’t address the math. The N40 displaces 55k the W40 displaces 33k
Or 0.6 of what the N40 displaces. So for displacement efficiency just about the same. I don’t have your miles but do have over 40k in blue water entirely off the shelf outside helicopter range on sail and was 7 year international cruiser without the access to the myriad services easily available to me while in the north east. So I’m not much moved by marketing hype. Wife lived with me and her interest is in what works as a liveaboard on anchor not what works in a slip. She actually has more experience than me as a motorboat liveaboard due to life as a child. My only issue with her cramming things on the boat concerns decorative pillows. At one point we had over ten scattered around. But living on a boat is very different than a delivery or passage. Needs are very different. Living on a boat is also very different than occasion use. BTW we don’t want household appliances on the next one. Prefer drawers purpose built for marine use. Prefer as much as possible DC rather than AC appliances. Don’t like induction nor electric stoves either.

The W40 is likely closer to 40k#. My W36 specs at 24k but the three or so I know that have been weighed show at around 32k in some semblance of half load. W36 carries 6000 lbs ballast, the W40 7000 lbs.

But I don't get the connection between displacement and efficiency. Part of the reason the N40 is heavier is it carries 400 gals more diesel. So it becomes a circular discussion - it needs load carrying capacity so it's designed to carry more load ergo a beamy design carried to the transom. Double enders force the weight into your mid sections of the boat, which is a good thing.

The original N46 which was a science project for a freshly minted NA Jeff Leishman had, for my tastes, too much buoyancy in the bow and the tanks were too far aft so she bounced in the bow and squatted with full tanks. Still a great boat, but a textbook example of getting the look right and making a boat marketable but compromising the sea keeping ability. Headed north along the pacific, I prefer to run her light with half tanks of possible.

West Coast fishing boats had modest bows. It didn't take long for fishermen to figure out it was better to go through chop rather than over it. The Willards show a similar approach - reserve buoyancy is achieved through a relatively high bow with modest flair and fill. To my tastes, GBs have a really nice bow compare to the overly full bow of their Taiwan copies.

Personally, I didn't know any of this when I I chose my W36 over 20 years ago. I had read the original Beebe book and it was mentioned as a good example of a sea boat. And frankly, I could afford it. Finally, I thought it looked cool. I didn't give a lot more thought than that. I still think it's one of the best looking trawlers in its class afloat. Slow-forward 25 years and I could afford to spend a lot more, but I'm a bit of a nostalgic so it suits me well - I'd rather have a cherry 1965 Ford Ranchero than a 2020 Escalade Pickup. She ticks enough boxes for my tastes and sensibilities.

Hippo - I'm of similar approach to creature comforts. As part of my refit, building in a refrigeration system similar to quality sailboats. GB used to put holding plate systems in but no longer. If you continue down then nordhavn route, you won't have a lot of choice. They attract owners who tend to tick a lot of boxes when purchasing the boat.

Peter

 

[Nomad Willy]

Thank you both, Peter and hippocampus, especially for posts 160 and 161.

Couldn’t follow most of hippo’s earlier posts mostly due to the high tech sailboat stuff and suspect most others experienced mostly the same.
I really enjoyed the N40/W40 comparison. One of my favorite boats is the N46. And what a difference. The 46 and 40 seem to come from different planets. My response to them from a which one is best to look at standpoint is night and day. The N40 seems manufactured in a plastic toy factory and the 46 seems more a distinctive yacht w ocean travel abilities.

But at last I know how hippo came to believe the box stern’d vessel can or is as efficient as a double ended boat. But if one compares wetted surface and wave making resistance I can’t see the canoe as less efficient than the full square stern. May be possible if the QBBL was the same for both, and the square sterned boat had all of it’s transom above the WL.

 

[mvweebles]

Thanks Eric. Given a choice between the N46 and the N40, I'd take the N40 in a heartbeat. The N46 is a great boat and it defines the gold standard for North sea style trawler. When I fetched up a berth in Ft Bragg CA, I came in next to an old fisherman getting ready for salmon season that opened on that part of the coast in a few days. Using colorful language that would get this post deleted, he said " we see a lot of yachts come through here. That one looks like she'd get 'er done!!"

But in my opinion, the advances made in the N40 design are significant. The engine room is bigger and access is better due to the bumps in the hull to allow full stand up next to engine. Fuel system was tweaked for the around the world trip. And she's well balanced and reasonably fast. Most of them were made in the Pacific Seacraft yard in California so the build quality is high. I exited the delivery business around the time PAE moved production to China so I can't speak to that build quality except to say the N57s I delivered around the same time were very high quality and I think the N40s went to the same yard. The n47s were in a different yard with somewhat lessor quality doors and ports (my opinion).

I've never been on a N43 but it just might be my perfect boat as it has room for a Stidd. But still, the N40 is a lot of boat for its size. Not sure how it would be with a flybridge, but I have nothing but respect for it. Compared to the W40 that was the same base price at the time, not hard to see why Willard tossed in the towel. They tried to go head to head against the N40. Tried to say the double ender was more sea kindly and such. Bless their heart, Willard was just lousy at marketing recreational boats. The joke about if you asked them to market sushi, they'd create an ad proclaiming "raw dead fish."

That said, I love Willards despite their flaws (perhaps because of the flaws). I am so proud to own a boat that came off the drafting board of Bill Garden and was built in California. Piece of history. Love is. Kind I suppose.

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

We’re downsizing. While we were cruising bought land (and knockdown house) inside a park. Has waterfront on a pond stocked with over 15000 trout annually and land locked salmon when available. Now have zero footprint house (geo/solar) but still want to spend months cruising. Wanted a 43 but it’s not in the budget if there’s going to be anything real left over for the kids. Know all to well how expenses expand when you liveaboard and cruise. Many expenses increase as use increase. You’re much less tolerant of things not being Bristol fashion at all times. Liveaboard means different things to different people. For some it’s their only residence and it doesn’t move much. For others it’s in frequent motion. So within our confines the N40 still leads the list for present even though it’s not my dreamboat. That’s an Artnautica 58.
Been looking at N40s. How they’re outfitted makes no sense to me. None have dedicated heat. All have enough AC dependent or high Ah stuff the generator needs to be run nearly all the time. Although our last boat had watermaker, AC, wesbasto, large TV, excellent sound system, electric heads etc. we’d be silent with no generator when on the hook. The Northernlights went on to exercise it not due to need.
Don’t get it. When cruising the beauty of natural sounds and peace of mind are priceless. Would think many owners are ex sailboat cruisers and feel the same.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Peter I know about that .. the later N boats were considered far better than the N46
But the N46 has a lot in common w the W30. I think my W30 suffers from being light fwd and heavy aft. The heavy aft accounts for the fact that the W30 isn’t one to excessively hobby horse. The W36 is a far better (balanced) boat. Trim and balance is ultra important and I think the W36 has it. Wish they made a 28’ version.

 

[Fletcher500]

Peter, its my understanding from a previous Nordhavn owner that the build quality of the N40’s improved a tad when they were moved offshore from the States.

 

[mvweebles]

Peter, its my understanding from a previous Nordhavn owner that the build quality of the N40’s improved a tad when they were moved offshore from the States.

I actually would not be surprised to learn this. One of the N57s I delivered to Florida had stainless steel that had been installed in China, and some that had been installed during commissioning in Dana Point. The Chinese steel seemed to hold up a bit better than the US-sourced steel (which admittedly may have been Chinese steel). My takeaway was the Chinese will build to a price point. If you want a high end product, they are capable to do so. Clearly, PAE wanted top quality work.

 

[mvweebles]

Peter I know about that .. the later N boats were considered far better than the N46
But the N46 has a lot in common w the W30. I think my W30 suffers from being light fwd and heavy aft. The heavy aft accounts for the fact that the W30 isn’t one to excessively hobby horse. The W36 is a far better (balanced) boat. Trim and balance is ultra important and I think the W36 has it. Wish they made a 28’ version.

Peter I know about that .. the later N boats were considered far better than the N46
But the N46 has a lot in common w the W30. I think my W30 suffers from being light fwd and heavy aft. The heavy aft accounts for the fact that the W30 isn’t one to excessively hobby horse. The W36 is a far better (balanced) boat. Trim and balance is ultra important and I think the W36 has it. Wish they made a 28’ version.

Having been the proud owner of St Cyr, 1972 W30 Searcher hull #5, it's my opinion that displacement hulls don't scale down very well - human weight makes a relatively large difference, and it's tough to get the weight low. That said, your nomad without flybridge should handle very well.

Surprised your boat is heavy in the stern. My Searcher was a bit light, especially with all chain rode in bow.

I still remember the sea trials on Weebles. Typical summer afternoon in SF Bay with 20+ kts wind. Her heft and stability were immediately apparent.

When Rod Swift, Willards NA, designed the W40, he filled out the bilge-turns a bit compared to the W36 to give a bit more form stability. I think that was a good thing. But my favorite design attribute of the W40 is the thwart-ship fuel tank spanning full beam beneath the pilot house. It's a great location as its close to middle of boat so no trim issues. And makes for a full beam engine room that is very easy to move around in. Finally, provides sound insulation for the forward staterooms. Surprised more boats dont configure tanks like this

Peter

 

[BrianG]

Don’t get it. When cruising the beauty of natural sounds and peace of mind are priceless. Would think many owners are ex sailboat cruisers and feel the same.

Yep, never understood why some of these guys run there gensets all night. I never appreciate parking next to them.

 

[hollywood8118]

We’re downsizing. Wanted a 43 but it’s not in the budget if there’s going to be anything real left over for the kids.

I have agreed with most all you have written until this.


Make your kids proud by going out and living your life.. Earned money is the money that is most valued.


Our kids know we dont plan to leave them much when we are gone, But they do love to tell the stories of all the crazy crap their folks do and the places they go.

Those commercials a few years ago that proclaimed "memories are priceless" in our opinion was spot on. get the boat you want and can afford and share the experience with your kids ( as long as you can stand to be around them).
HOLLYWOOD

 

[Nomad Willy]

mvweebles wrote;
“Surprised your boat is heavy in the stern. My Searcher was a bit light, especially with all chain rode in bow.“

I forgot to mention .. and thus my bad.
Willy had a leaking stern tube that allowed seawater to ingress the lazerette and required removal.
I replaced the concrete and steel w lead in various forms, sheet, rounds, rod .. ect. I think I did too good of a job packing it in. Lead bird shot was last and filled much of the voids left. Always intended to scoop out much of the shot on top but lead being not healthy I’ve shy’d away from the job. And I’d much rather be heavy aft than fwd.
Also I have nothing fwd to account for ballast. 95% nylon rode.
Her bow gets blown downwind a bit w no way on but in the nasty I have no complaints.

 

[FF]

"GB used to put holding plate systems in but no longer."

The 2 strikes against holding plates are ,
1 the box in the system needs to be custom built which is time consuming so expensive , even in low wage areas .

2, the the usual boatyard refrigeration fellow has zero experience with the operation of this style of system or its very different control system.

The folks that service a supermarket freezer system would do a better job.

So eutetic plates get a bad rap, although for the anchor out folks it is probably the best system to live with.

 

[Hippocampus]

Have had all different brands and types of refrigeration. To date frigiboat has been the best. Lowest draw. Had two so could use either as a frig or freezer. Compressor fairly generic and very durable. Had removable divide between frig/freezer so loss of either could be accommodated with no loss of food on passage or remote place. Pretty ubiquitous for parts and troubleshooting was easy. Hardest part was to get the right refrigerant in some places.
Wish the paradigm was different for power. It so nice to live with a boat that’s makes no noise. That other than getting food requires little or no land support. Our D400s and solar was enough to run the watermaker whenever we wanted, play music, and run electronics. I understand liberating hydrocarbons for propulsion. It gives you great freedom. But don’t understand why technologies long in use aren’t incorporated in small mom and pop trawlers. It surprises my non boating friends that even in the tropics there’s little or no need for AC as long as you have shade and adequate ventilation. Although the green aspect is nice that’s not what I’m talking about. Rather a view it as a quality of life thing. Have been friendly with power cruisers so spend social time on their boats. It’s different. Wonder if this desire to tread lightly and quietly will be reflected in how new boats are spec’d.

 

[psneeld]

Most boaters I know don't anchor out...and along the East Coast many anchorages aren't all that quiet.

I remember one in Virginia, the frogs were so noisy that you couldn't hear the Jets flying into Norfolk or the genset.

 

[Hippocampus]

We have spent a fair amount of time up and down the east Coast and rarely don’t anchor out. Think a lot of folks won’t anchor unless the chart is marked as an anchorage. Except for some areas of Maine where it’s all rock ledge there’s huge areas where the bottom makes for excellent anchoring. There’s no nearby marinas, businesses nor other sources of noise. You can pick your spot to be out of traffic, wind or wave. Most of my friends rarely enter a designated anchorage nor marina. Exceptions are when needing to shop, service or sightsee. Even then a good dinghy with a good engine can keep you out of the hussle and bussle if you have adequate rode and anchor. Different strokes for different folks.

 

[psneeld]

I hardly use designated anchorages...unless thats the only one cl9se to where I want to be.

My comments stand.