Two boats for Eric

[Marin]

Eric---* I thought you would be interested in these photos I took today specifically with you in mind.* It was a typical PNW overcast, drizzly day so the photos are not very bright but no matter.* Knowing your interest in hull designs I took most of the photos exposed for the lower hulls of both boats.

The two boats are a Willard 60 and a Nordhavn 50.* While you'll know immediately which is which in the first photo, for anyone who might not know the big Willard is on the left and the Nordhavn is on the right.

You mentioned once that you were not familiar with the Nordhavn 50.* There is one a dock over from us but the other week I noticed another N50 had appeared in the Seaview North Yard in our marina.* An interesting feature is the "get home" drive in the form of a second shaft with a sailboat-type self-feathering prop on it.* I don't know what powers this shaft.* I believe it's linked to a generator but I could be wrong.* And to anyone who thinks the hole in the bow bulb is for the bow thruster, you are correct.* The Willard has a bow thruster, too, but it isn't obvious in the photos.

The Willard 60 has been in our marina for several years until it was sold last year.* We knew the previous owners of this boat who lived on it for a short time.* The current owners keep it in Alaska during the summer and somewhere in Puget Sound for the winter.* I assume it's in Seaview for routine bottom painting, etc.* I thought you might find it interesting that it is a semi-planing boat.* The previous owner told us that it can cruise at about 14 knots if you want it to.* Wouldn't want the fuel bill, though.




-- Edited by Marin on Sunday 6th of February 2011 09:44:13 PM

 

[sunchaser]

Please*note the fly bridges on both!

 

[Woodsong]

yeah, they'd both look pretty decent if you took the flybridges off.

Sorry- couldn't resist! just kidding.


Beautiful boats. Big difference in hull for between the 2 boats.

 

[Nomad Willy]

Hi Marin,
Oh boy** ....computer works again*** ..too much snow on the dish I think. And I needed to rescue my wife down in Klawock driving the Buick Le Sabre. Was a basic blizzard day here. Needed the 4wd to do the deed today.
There's hardly anything to like about the Willard and it looks even more like a planing hull than your GB. Just a big heavy under powered planing hull much like most all the TTs. Even the bow lacks the grace of a typical boat. Looks like the designer had a Cruise-a-home across the street from his house when he drew up the lines of that boat. Being Willard built it may be a good boat in that respect but it may have been built to a tight budget and even that didn't save it. The Nordy is another slice of cheese to be sure. Here is an example of a boat that probably was designed as a stabilized boat in that I think it could be a VERY roll prone hull without those active fin stabilizers. Other than the aft roof being a little bit too chunky it's a very good looking boat. Not as nice and proper looking as the 46 but nice. However I'd rather take the LA to Seattle run in this boat. I've seen pics in old PMM issues and the Wing engines were (as I recall) little Yanmar sail boat inboard engines. Nothing complicated or hybrid about them. Thanks for sharing Marin and I like your photograph in the big bird cockpit.

PS,
I see my opinion on fly bridges has been well recorded and not likely to be forgotten soon. However these boats are big enough to gracefully carry the weight and windage and that's all I have against them any good looking FB.

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Sunday 6th of February 2011 09:52:30 PM

 

[Marin]

nomadwilly wrote:

I've seen pics in old PMM issues and the Wing engines were (as I recall) little Yanmar sail boat inboard engines. Nothing complicated or hybrid about them.

Eric--- Thanks for the wing engine explanation.* I didn't think the wing shaft was electric powered, only that it was either geared to or belt-driven off a generator diesel.* I am pretty sure I've read about a get-home shaft and prop powered this way but I don't remember the make of boat or if it was a factory or owner-installed system.

I agree with you about the Nordhavn's side deck overhang thickness.* Perhaps it has to be this way for some reason but I think it would look better thinned down some.

The previous owners told us the interior of the Willard 60 was pretty amazing-- very spacious, which I guess might explain the Cruise-A-Home bow

.* Unfortunately we never had the time to take them up on their offer to show us the inside.* I do remember hiim saying the pilothouse has it's own head.* It's actually a fairly old boat, much older than its design and condition would imply.

When this boat was at the broker's dock a massive stainless steel barbecue-grill-crab-cooker "station" appeared in the cockpit on the starboard side up against the cabin bulkhead.* I wish I had thought to take a photo of it.* The broker for this boat told us that the current owner is a major fish/seafood cooking kind of person, and that this extremely upmarket custom cooking station had run in the neighborhood of $10,000.* If I see the boat back in the water at a dock I'll try to get a shot of it.* It's impressive.

 

[Tidahapah]

Guys,
My neighbour in my homa marina has a Nordhavn 50 without a flybridge and so it does not look quite so chunky.
Still they have a too small back deck for good entertaining in the tropics.

I'll get a photo of the nordie later.

Benn

-- Edited by Tidahapah on Monday 7th of February 2011 04:23:30 AM

 

[JD]

Marin wrote:

*very spacious, which I guess might explain the Cruise-A-Home bow

.*

Not as astute as you and Eric but doesn't the bow of the Willard remind you of some of the Krogen bows?* Maybe just the upper third.

The get home engine was I believe a Yanmar 4JHE which was 55HP engine used by a lot of sailboat builders (Hunter, Catalina)*then became a*4JH4-TE or some such number with the Turbo added and got up into the 74HP range.

*


-- Edited by JD on Monday 7th of February 2011 08:58:10 AM

 

[sunchaser]

It seems the Willard bow was*borrowed by Mainship for their 39 Trawler.

 

[Woodsong]

What do you think looks better- flybridge or no flybridge?

 

[JohnP]

Tony, I like the Hatt with the bridge.** JohnP

 

[hollywood8118]

The Nordhavn.... being the typical well designed boat that they are... has a short "curb" around the fly bridge roof and has drains so the water that drops on the fly bridge does not drop to the lower deck or the hull. Very nice when you are sitting on the aft lower deck with your favorite book and fermented beverage of choice and the Admiral decides that the upper deck is too hot to sunbathe on...
Those Nordy's are sweet boats ( fly bridge included )

HOLLYWOOD

 

[Marin]

Regarding the two Hatteras boats, aesthetically, I prefer the one without the flying bridge. Looks longer, sleeker.

-- Edited by Marin on Monday 7th of February 2011 12:12:43 PM

 

[Nomad Willy]

I'm w Marin. The FB makes it look like a party barge. But I like Marin's GB and Hollywood's boat WITH the FB. The FB dos'nt do any damage to Tony's boat either. When I was looking at a Monk and talking about removing the FB I was motivated thinking of the high CG and windage.


Here is a very nice looking boat** ...yes ..better than my Willard I'd say.
Someone said the Willard bow looks like a Krogen*** ...don't see it. I sure wish my Willard stern looked like a Krogen 42 though.
http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/pl_display_photo.jsp?slim=broker&&photo=9&boat_id=2122374&ybw=&boatname=38%27+Albion+Cabin+Cruiser&hosturl=pacificboatbrokers&photo_name=Photo+2

-- Edited by nomadwilly on Monday 7th of February 2011 02:20:20 PM

 

[markpierce]

nomadwilly wrote:

*When I was looking at a Monk and talking about removing the FB I was motivated thinking of the high CG and windage.

I have those concerns too, particularly for boats under 40-45 feet in length.

*

 

[dwhatty]

markpierce wrote:

*
nomadwilly wrote:

When I was looking at a Monk and talking about removing the FB I was motivated thinking of the high CG and windage.

I have those concerns too, particularly for boats under 40-45 feet in length.

Two years ago when my professional tugboat son (he at the wheel) and I left the pier in a good crosswind taking little 32' "Emily Anne" out* to her new "home" after closing on her purchase, his words were "Dad, you've got yourselves a hell of a sail here". The trip went downhill from there (another story) but.... in spite of all that, once we got familiar with the boat, we love the flybridge even after subsequently being out in relatively high winds and seas. Center of gravity has not been a problem so far. She's good and stable in spite of the "castle". Another 20' of length to her and the proportions might possibly begin to be neutral to Marin. Or maybe not.

*

 

[Nomad Willy]

Mr Hawkins,
You better give Marin too much guano about the CG thing as it was I that made the CG comments. Island Gypsy was one of the boats I was looking at and I was concerned about the CG but for a 32 the IGs are wide at 12' w hard chines. Re: your experience all should be well as I've not of any capsizes. I'm not trying to give anyone the worry thoughts but CG is something to keep way back in the dark recesses of the mind. The thought will prolly pop up at the right time when you need it. I meant it to be an observational. The spell checker didn't even underline "observational"*** ...must be a real word.

 

[Codger2]

nomadwilly wrote:" Island Gypsy was one of the boats I was looking at and I was concerned about the CG but for a 32 the IGs are wide at 12' w hard chines."

Eric:
"Thems fighting words" when one voices their "concern" over the 32' Island
Gypsy's CG! As you probably know, my boat is built on the IG 32 hull and is not
even close to being unstable. I know that you didn't use that word (unstable) but
when one questions the CG of a boat as being possibly too high, the inference is
made. I ask for your retraction of the above quote as your opinion was formed at
the dock or looking at photographs and without actually having been on the boat.
I await your reply, sir.

P.S. If you can ascertain the CG of a boat simply by looking at a photo, I would be interested in your opinion of the big gray boat I've attached.



*





-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Monday 7th of February 2011 08:45:25 PM

 

[Peter B]

Good point Walt, and even tho my boat has a flybridge, I don't have canvas or clears round it to keep weight, and more importantly windage down.* However, it is for that reason I feel drawn to the Alaska 46 Sedan in the link as my concept of the 'ideal' boat, if money was not an object, and admitting I am never likely to make the sort of voyages to justify a Nordy...

http://www.boatpoint.com.au/reviews/2010/passagemaker/alaska-46-sedan-19884

 

[Nomad Willy]

Walt**** cool your jets man. I think most all trawlers have a CG that's a bit high but they seem to get away with it quite well. Haven't heard of any capsizes at all but most trawlers have a CG (wherever it is) that's unnecessarily high. To have a bridge high enough that the helmsman can see over the bow is necessary but to have something as unnecessary as a FB made of heavy plastic w enough seating capacity for 7 or 800lbs of people too I'm suggesting may*** ....just MAY be in some small way be unseamanlike activity at the drafting board. I once worked at Uniflite in the engineering department and we took pride in our skills developed over time. A car designer knows where all the heavy things are in a typical car and could, I'm sure predict about where the CG of a car was w a good photo.
Your picture of the Enterprise is very sharp and obviously the CG will be higher than normal w all those birds on deck. Her CG running like that is a bit ahead of the island, a bit fwd of the island and a bit above the WL w all those birds on deck. I think that flight deck is about 50-55' above the water. Great picture Walt. Not to worry Walt*** ...as I said I was thinking of buying an IG. But if you remember correctly I was talking about taking off the FB and complimenting you on how well your boat looked without the FB. Peace

 

[Codger2]

Eric:

I'm sure you know that I was just pulling your leg.

You are entitled to your opinion & I respect that, but it is an opinion and not gospel.
Since Enterprise is about 28 feet below the waterline, I question if her CG is as high as you say it is. I was part of her crew on her first cruise and at 30+ knots and hard over rudder, she would have rolled over given your estimate of her CG location.

 

[JD]

Peter B wrote:I feel drawn to the Alaska 46 Sedan in the link as my concept of the 'ideal' boat, if money was not an object, and admitting I am never likely to make the sort of voyages to justify a Nordy...

Peter B,

Hey Doc you do not have to be a F1 driver to own a Porsche.* Same thing with a Nordy.* But I like you Alaska as well.

Just sayn.

*

 

[Nomad Willy]

WALT-
You asked me a difficult question and I stressed over it for a time and came up w a reasonable answer and now you're telling me you dodn't know the answer yourself???
I won't ever know if I'm right? If that grey boat only drew 28' I would think it would roll over w all those birds on the upper deck. I'd say it's just as likely to be 50'. But that's a lot of boat under the water. And about the FB...***** I didn't say I could tell the CG of a boat**** ... you did. I only assumed the obvious that the CG of a boat w a FB is going to be higher than one without** ...and significantly so but not (in most cases) dangerously so. Don't need any magic to tell that. The IGs are fine and I'm still looking at one*** ..out of the corner of my eye. Now** ...where's the CG on that grey boat Walt.

 

[Baker]

I will say I was fortunate enough to be at the Miami boat show awhile back when the economy was booming and Nordy had every single boat in their line up on display(62 was the biggest at the time). I boarded each and every one of them. And the N50 was far and above my favorite. Just overall layout insdie and out made it a very nice boat that compromised all areas equally....or at least areas that are important to me....

 

[RickB]

nomadwilly wrote: *I'd say it's just as likely to be 50'. But that's a lot of boat under the water. Now** ...where's the CG on that grey boat Walt.

Actually, the draft of the Enterprise is around 40 feet.

Walt*looked up the WW2 version ... and just for grins, the CG on that beast was around 15 feet above the waterline. And you are correct about the location of the vertical CG*of the nuke*version, *it is most likely several feet above the waterline with those planes on deck.

So, Walt, where do you think it should be? Where is it on your own boat?*

And where do you think the CG is located on one of those*"high rise"*cruise ships with*"flying bridges" high enough to create their own glaciers*and can just barely squeeze through the Panama Canal.


-- Edited by RickB on Tuesday 8th of February 2011 01:14:58 PM

 

[Marin]

RickB wrote:

And where do you think the CG is located on one of those*"high rise"*cruise ships with*"flying bridges" high enough to create their own glaciers*and can just barely squeeze through the Panama Canal.

I see the cruise ships docked in Seattle during their summer season and as they get larger and larger I often wonder how tippy they really are.* The story is all about maximizing volume and guest space but as these things continue to get bigger, I'm curious if they are getting perilously close to instability.* Or are they more stable than they look?

*

 

[Woodsong]

Are you kidding? Cruise ships handle rough seas very well. This one didn't even spill a single glass of champagne!

 

[Jay N]

Marin wrote:


RickB wrote:

And where do you think the CG is located on one of those*"high rise"*cruise ships with*"flying bridges" high enough to create their own glaciers*and can just barely squeeze through the Panama Canal.

I see the cruise ships docked in Seattle during their summer season and as they get larger and larger I often wonder how tippy they really are.* The story is all about maximizing volume and guest space but as these things continue to get bigger, I'm curious if they are getting perilously close to instability.* Or are they more stable than they look?

*

Newer cruise ships*of similar size tend to have less stability (measured by GM, the distance between the CG and the ship's metacenter) than older cruise ships.* But they tend to be safer than older ships because of the way they are designed/compartmented.*

A TITANIC*type of catastrophic event would probably not produce a sinking in modern cruise ships, it would take*a much larger catastrophe.*

It's my understanding that the GM on cruise ships is usually somewhat less than 1 meter.* Depending on how they are loaded/trimmed/ballasted, the GM on certain fast containerships can be as little as 0.6 meters.* A GM of under 2 meters tends to be the most comfortable for the*crew when*at sea,*a GM of 4 or higher tends to create a*very uncomfortable*motion.

Any vessel with a small GM needs care in handling, as they tend to have unstable steering which means that the rate of turn accelerates given a steady rudder angle.* On cruise ships, having the ship turn without heeling is important (as you might imagine), and their quartermasters are well trained to achieve this.* At sea, their autopilots are configured/trusted to keep heel to a minimum.

*

 

[markpierce]

Marin wrote:

I see the cruise ships docked in Seattle during their summer season and as they get larger and larger I often wonder how tippy they really are.* The story is all about maximizing volume and guest space but as these things continue to get bigger, I'm curious if they are getting perilously close to instability.* Or are they more stable than they look?

*

On my last cruise (trans-Atlantic, Nov. 2010) we had waves 50+ feet in height (I previously posted photos of them) hitting us abeam which rolled the ship perhaps 15 degrees or so.* Some people fell with their chairs in the dining room, including*silverware, glasses, plates, etc. (including a bowl of milk on my lap) resulted in the dining room.* Here's a photo of one of the ship's stores:

-- Edited by markpierce on Tuesday 8th of February 2011 03:43:01 PM

 

[RickB]

All the talk about GM is nice, a small distance between G and M makes for a nice ride for the boxes and bluehairs but the question for Walt was where is the vertical CG located? What distance above the keel?

Where is it on your boat? On a tugboat? A cruiseship? An aircraft carrier? A megayacht?

 

[Codger2]

SeaHorse II wrote:Since Enterprise is about 28 feet below the waterline, I question if her CG is as high as you say it is.

Eric, RickB and anyone else:

Please note that I never said I knew where Enterprise's CG is...I questioned
Eric's* "guess" as to where it is. After an exhaustive search for the answer,
it appears the Navy doesn't want us to know the answer! The only thing
close to an answer that I've been able to find is this excerpt from a study that
was done on using old nuclear ships for offshore water & power plants.

Where did I get the 28 feet number from? While taking a launch to the ship many
years ago, as we approached the gangway from the bow, There was a "28"
painted very clearly at the water line. Of course the ship was totally empty
with no planes, fuel for the "tin cans', etc. and that number stuck in my head. The official draught is listed at 39 feet.

Rick, you said I looked up the WWll version of carriers (which I didn't) but I would love to kow where that info is at. Do they list the CGs for those ships? You, however, were very accurate on the draught of Enterprise as you guesed 40 feet.


While searching for the CG info, I copied the specs on "The Big E" from Wikipedia.


.


*




-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Tuesday 8th of February 2011 05:47:57 PM