captain_crunch

When good designers produce ugly boats.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

I believe it was a tounge in cheek reference to an ancient technology.

Just that when you wanted reverse or to slow down the idea of forcing a reverse of thrust was similar in the most basic concept possible

 

And don’t get me started about the addiction I have for watching NZ Jetboats  on Youtube!

 

;) Love the supercharging whine at the start of that run but it’s mainly deep, flat & fast - very fast!

Def’ search for skinny water or gorge vids, those boys know how to helm a boat! Gets you into some lovely bits too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, HFC Hunter said:

;) Love the supercharging whine at the start of that run but it’s mainly deep, flat & fast - very fast!

Def’ search for skinny water or gorge vids, those boys know how to helm a boat! Gets you into some lovely bits too.

 

 

Holy crap. How thick are the bottoms on those boats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ususally just sheet alu. The boats are pretty light. Edit: 5mm, with maybe 10mm at your delta.

The classics are 12mm ply with a glass skin, sometimes Kevlar.

The clever ones also bond a skin of hdpe on for extra slidiness when it gets toooo thin.

Edited by HFC Hunter
Forgot numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, HFC Hunter said:

Ususally just sheet alu. The boats are pretty light. Edit: 5mm, with maybe 10mm at your delta.

The classics are 12mm ply with a glass skin, sometimes Kevlar.

The clever ones also bond a skin of hdpe on for extra slidiness when it gets toooo thin.

I noticed he went some places where the water was much thinner than the rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Sure looks like that boat flexes a lot, needs more backstay.

I think the apparent flex is an artifact of the way the camera scans. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

I noticed he went some places where the water was much thinner than the rocks.

As long as you can keep water coming into the intake and some forward momentum you can get away with a lot. Otherwise you step out and push.

The competition jetsprints are mad: dragster acceleration, with high G turns, in a foot of water. The naviguesser works rather hard!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HFC Hunter said:

The clever ones also bond a skin of hdpe on

How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

How?

Skip to 3.15, but worth checking out the full clip.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SemiSalt said:

I think the apparent flex is an artifact of the way the camera scans. 

Well, that spoils all the fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Zonker said:

The crossover point is generally accepted to be around 25-30 knots. Above that range, the extra drag of a rotating prop shaft, P bracket, and rudder starts to really count. Below that range, the smaller impeller of a waterjet (and internal duct resistance) makes waterjets less efficient.

I also like surface drives for very fast boats. Really good efficiencies because you're turning a big prop and rudder chores are handled by swinging drive left/right (though some have external rudders). Not so good in reverse or at slow speeds where the waterjets still work OK

arneson-drive-on-manta.jpg

Thanks for the qualified answer!

I've always wondered whether one could strap a jetski waterjet unit to a small diesel (redneck engineering style!) to power a relatively small boat suitable for fishing bass, retrieving lobster pots and also for the odd time you need to support a scuba diver. I imagine a relatively slender say 25ft plywood boat - just wide enough to retrieve pots safely - obviously a big plus of the waterjet is that there is no propeller in the water, doing 12 knots would be good enough. From what you say the boat would be too slwo for fuel economy to be on the list of advantages!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Priscilla said:

Pretty is as pretty does. That boat was designed for a family to economically enjoy safe sailing holidays in Kiwi conditions: sun, wind, rain or storms. LD nailed it.

There’s a complement in NZ to yachts like her: “She’d be a good Sounds boat.” (“Pelorus” being one of our marine Sounds.) Starts to epitomise the beauty in workboats éthique, but in family sailing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Sailbydate said:
On 11/24/2018 at 5:06 PM, Priscilla said:

Laurie Davidson Pelorus.

Even the maestro can have a off day.

69E422A3-4A31-444E-9BCB-80EBE84D7673.jpeg.96b60d1b1197dca5a598b86d9c659d6d.jpeg

Actually her hull lines are pretty. Shame about the accommodation. 

I'd hit that in a second. Then again, I did own and enjoy a WWP19 for a few years so maybe I'm an outlier.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind that Pelorus. It ain't pretty but in that JEEP sense of utilitarian styling it works for my eye. I would make the cove stripe more delicate and stop it shorter of the ends. I'd give the boat a tapered bootstripe, not too wide. I'd paint the deck a very light grey/green or grey/blue or maybe a very light tan. I'd use dark curtains in those big windows. The more I look at it the more I like it. That's a sweet hull. Laurie has a very good eye. Not sure how much he got involved with decks and cabin trunks. Some thing tells me not much.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally had time to peruse this thread and it's a great illustration of form vs function, with the above a great example.  And then there are the minor changes as Bob just mentioned that make a big difference in the row away factor.  I still enjoy going fast but now appreciate doing it in comfort.  At the end of the day if it doesn't sail well nothing else matters - like the hot woman with zero personality.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey, the more I look at the Pelorus I find myself self disagreeing with myself.

It was in reality a forerunner to this hottie with an abundance of personality.

Forgive me Laurie for I have sinned.

49E2F54C-5527-4B32-B2D7-1DF0ACBDFC9F.thumb.jpeg.d680d29ea8e935cd3999b0bf6d6354bb.jpeg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 2:35 AM, Panoramix said:

've always wondered whether one could strap a jetski waterjet unit to a small diesel (redneck engineering style!) to power a relatively small boat suitable for fishing bass, retrieving lobster pots and also for the odd time you need to support a scuba diver. I imagine a relatively slender say 25ft plywood boat - just wide enough to retrieve pots safely - obviously a big plus of the waterjet is that there is no propeller in the water, doing 12 knots would be good enough. From what you say the boat would be too slwo for fuel economy to be on the list of advantages!

The short answer is "not a great idea"

Long answer - prop efficiency is proportional to diameter. Big slow turning props (think freighters) are very efficient at providing thrust. Small props have to turn faster to generate thrust but run into tip speed issues (> speed of sound for air propellers; back cavitation for water propellers). So a jetski moving very fast uses a tiny impeller so tip speed doesn't get too high, but that same prop is pretty poor at pushing any significant hull. 

Jet outboards (either factory conversions or aftermarket) are a thing. But while good for really shallow water, they are only about 2/3 as efficient as a good outboard prop. I'd consider those before a jet ski conversion because the impeller diameter will be a lot bigger than a jetski - and lots less engineering to make it work. It's just an outboard with a modified lower section. 

Waterjet bottom shapes have to be carefully designed to avoid getting air bubbles into the jet intake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I like the Pelorus. It looks.... "pesky". I think it would look a bit better if the larger windows were about ~80% of the size they are right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pesky is a perfect description of its look.

Maybe the bottom of the windows should run along a line extended from the coamings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree Zonks. Bring the bottom of the big window up until it's in line with the lower edge of the forward ports. Drop the top edge 2". Presto change-o!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zonker said:

The short answer is "not a great idea"

Long answer - prop efficiency is proportional to diameter. Big slow turning props (think freighters) are very efficient at providing thrust. Small props have to turn faster to generate thrust but run into tip speed issues (> speed of sound for air propellers; back cavitation for water propellers). So a jetski moving very fast uses a tiny impeller so tip speed doesn't get too high, but that same prop is pretty poor at pushing any significant hull. 

Jet outboards (either factory conversions or aftermarket) are a thing. But while good for really shallow water, they are only about 2/3 as efficient as a good outboard prop. I'd consider those before a jet ski conversion because the impeller diameter will be a lot bigger than a jetski - and lots less engineering to make it work. It's just an outboard with a modified lower section. 

Waterjet bottom shapes have to be carefully designed to avoid getting air bubbles into the jet intake.

The fishing boats on Pt Stephens bay (~70nm N of Sydney) still hand broadcast their nets from rowing boats (local design, about 16'). Several of them have been converted to engine, using old jetskis - everything but the seats - mounted amidships.  Presumably more concerned with maneuverability in the shallows and not fouling their nets than speed. Seem to work OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Fleetwood - any idea what sort of speed they get from these jetski engines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Zonker said:

The short answer is "not a great idea"

Long answer - prop efficiency is proportional to diameter. Big slow turning props (think freighters) are very efficient at providing thrust. Small props have to turn faster to generate thrust but run into tip speed issues (> speed of sound for air propellers; back cavitation for water propellers). So a jetski moving very fast uses a tiny impeller so tip speed doesn't get too high, but that same prop is pretty poor at pushing any significant hull. 

Jet outboards (either factory conversions or aftermarket) are a thing. But while good for really shallow water, they are only about 2/3 as efficient as a good outboard prop. I'd consider those before a jet ski conversion because the impeller diameter will be a lot bigger than a jetski - and lots less engineering to make it work. It's just an outboard with a modified lower section. 

Waterjet bottom shapes have to be carefully designed to avoid getting air bubbles into the jet intake.

Thanks, I kind of feared that would be the answer as intutively the big prop makes sense!

7 hours ago, Fleetwood said:

The fishing boats on Pt Stephens bay (~70nm N of Sydney) still hand broadcast their nets from rowing boats (local design, about 16'). Several of them have been converted to engine, using old jetskis - everything but the seats - mounted amidships.  Presumably more concerned with maneuverability in the shallows and not fouling their nets than speed. Seem to work OK.

Interesting, have you got photos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 9:18 PM, Priscilla said:

Bob, she has been listed on SA classified for quite a few moons.

If I was not in the land of the long white cloud I would add her to my fleet in a heartbeat.

6F9E5781-65AB-42C1-B19B-82C1F1CF0AB8.thumb.jpeg.ad323bad4668f9fbe7a021819dce3316.jpeg

 

https://sailinganarchy.com/classifieds/show-ad/?id=3827

 

Built in 1984, those Kiwi designers rock!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fleetwood said:

The fishing boats on Pt Stephens bay (~70nm N of Sydney) still hand broadcast their nets from rowing boats (local design, about 16'). Several of them have been converted to engine, using old jetskis - everything but the seats - mounted amidships.  Presumably more concerned with maneuverability in the shallows and not fouling their nets than speed. Seem to work OK.

Which one is it?

DA1BAAFB-7393-468A-B2AC-B4B0504E02EB.jpeg

C5FFBFEC-262D-4DF3-A012-B3AC52F8CE4C.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Zonker said:

Hey Fleetwood - any idea what sort of speed they get from these jetski engines?

Never seen them in action; I'm usually still tucked up in bed when they are out!   I'd be surprised if they go much faster than hull speed, they're workboats after all and the bay is only a couple of miles wide by maybe 5 miles deep.

I'll get some pics next time I'm there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"An innovative use of integrated sponsons and aggressive spray knockers result in an efficient design in both calm and rougher conditions."

What's a 'spray knocker' , Bob?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tricky;

Most powerboats have some detail at the chine to deflect the spray. It can be a small, molded in, horizontal "flat' running the length of the chine, this is common.. Or it ca be an added  strip shaped with a flat bottom just big enough to deflect the spray. When I tank tested the model for my 42' powerboat I tried it with and without the spray knocker. I was interested in finding out exactly how far forward I needed to run the spray knocker. With no spray knock the boat was impossible. Water just peeled up the topsides and looked like it would shower into the cockpit area.

On my  Lobster boat inspired powerboat the spray knocker is clearly visible forward.

44191559542_88cb0edf04_k.jpgLobby by robert perry, on Flickr

On this shot of the 42' double ended powerboat plug you can clearly see the built in flat at the chine to act as a spray knocker.

46222231752_f709394293_k.jpg42mold2 by robert perry, on Flickr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smart rail makes them as aftermarket products to attach near the chine. 

https://www.integritymarinecorp.com/smart-rails

I’m getting them for a 20’ Shamrock restoration/diesel conversion. I think they’ll work just fine. It’s almost as wet a ride now as a Chris Craft dory.

85154612-1495-4F13-A669-31A51749EDE1.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 11:21 PM, Bob Perry said:

Tricky;

Most powerboats have some detail at the chine to deflect the spray. It can be a small, molded in, horizontal "flat' running the length of the chine, this is common.. Or it ca be an added  strip shaped with a flat bottom just big enough to deflect the spray. When I tank tested the model for my 42' powerboat I tried it with and without the spray knocker. I was interested in finding out exactly how far forward I needed to run the spray knocker. With no spray knock the boat was impossible. Water just peeled up the topsides and looked like it would shower into the cockpit area.

On my  Lobster boat inspired powerboat the spray knocker is clearly visible forward.

44191559542_88cb0edf04_k.jpgLobby by robert perry, on Flickr

On this shot of the 42' double ended powerboat plug you can clearly see the built in flat at the chine to act as a spray knocker.

42mold2 by robert perry, on Flickr

Thanks Bob,

I've never heard the term. Chine, rails or spray deflectors but not `spray knockers'. 

I find the spray knocker on that Wylie powerboat a bit weird; It is rounded so the spray can't necessarily release off them. I think they were done that way just to be different. No other powerboat had successfully used rounded chines or rounded `spray knockers' and I'd say there is a good reason for that!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2018 at 4:21 AM, Bob Perry said:

44191559542_88cb0edf04_k.jpgLobby by robert perry, on Flickr

That is a sweet little powerboat.

I'll have mine with a flybridge though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tricky:

If that photo is the only view you have seen of that powerboat I'm not sure you are seeing what you think you are seeing. What I see is a small, horizontal "flat" (in section) running fore and aft. Ed Monk Jr. did a rounded chine with a small flat at the top of the radius on many of his larger motor boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the reverse chine in speedboats can solve the spray problem and provides more lift and stability in turns compared to a typical v hulls. 

I have a Larson with a stepped hull. It looks like a dry ride. I wouldn’t know though, it’s getting a new motor and going wwaayyy down the road to a new owner. The shamrock is getting spray rails and a diesel and will tow the fleet.

0127E3B4-0932-441D-A38B-E94C244666E3.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bob Perry said:

Tricky:

If that photo is the only view you have seen of that powerboat I'm not sure you are seeing what you think you are seeing. What I see is a small, horizontal "flat" (in section) running fore and aft. Ed Monk Jr. did a rounded chine with a small flat at the top of the radius on many of his larger motor boat.

I was looking at all the photos on their website and if there is a small flat in that rounded section then I suppose it is intended as the release point. I still find the arrangement strange and not something embraced in the main at all.

Screen Shot 2018-12-14 at 11.57.49 am.png

Screen Shot 2018-12-14 at 11.57.28 am.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tricky:

Yeah, I see what you mean.  But I see a hard change in sectional; shape inboard of that rounded "chine". I think the "work": is being done there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still the round outer curve will allow water to try and cling which is just what a chine is supposed to prevent. Wylie is making more like sponsons than chines with that configuration. 

Draggy but stable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that boat, especially the low horsepower part. I'd love to give one a go. I agree about the chines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tim Kernan 48 has a “double” chine with the upper one a reverse round which seems to work very well in keeping spray off the deck and windshield.

I hope these pictures shows it well enough to understand it.

1DB10266-C803-4A7E-A168-7E3E0BD3E59F.jpeg

1F3D19CC-E9D0-47C7-B30A-3EA19A5EA826.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/13/2018 at 5:01 PM, Trickypig said:

 

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-14 at 11.57.28 am.png

This configuration is similar to the George Greenough designed Anderson 21 and 17 boats that are popular around here.  They, too, are efficient and smooth.

Greenough/Anderson 17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 8:50 PM, SloopJonB said:

That is a sweet little powerboat.

I'll have mine with a flybridge though.

I heard from someone the other day that the proper term is “flying bridge.”

That was news to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, they are right.

The one that irritates me is that they are commonly called "command bridges" around here.

To me this is a command bridge.

image.png.98fd57d85bf0cee2910a41c103764a86.png

While this is a flying bridge.

image.png.4137b6c9ba480965acae2f5fbd7743e4.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Tollycraft 48 living in the slip next to mine with one of these. It's practically brand new but it makes a perfectly decent looking motor yacht look shabby. The best part is that they put a completely useless windshield wiper on that center isinglass window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, unShirley said:

This configuration is similar to the George Greenough designed Anderson 21 and 17 boats that are popular around here.  They, too, are efficient and smooth.

Greenough/Anderson 17

That "George Greenough"?  I rode a fish for many years because of him until I got too old and fat and switched to a (not so) fun shape!  Would have expected some neat sailboats from him (ie Hobie and Munoz) but those power boats are definitely different and look built for a purpose that I am sure they serve well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rasputin22 said:

We see these all the time around my neck of the woods.

Image result for flying bridge with windows

We call them 'oxygen tents'.

Those things look a whole lot better from inside on a cold, wet day.

That said, they are really hard on your vision from looking through them at a blurry world..

I've never understood spending all that money to make your boat look ugly when there is a perfectly good, warm helm station down below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bridhb said:

That "George Greenough"?  I rode a fish for many years because of him until I got too old and fat and switched to a (not so) fun shape!  Would have expected some neat sailboats from him (ie Hobie and Munoz) but those power boats are definitely different and look built for a purpose that I am sure they serve well.

Indeed.  They are designed and built to cross the Santa Barbara Channel to fish and surf the Channel Islands and they do it brilliantly.

 

BTW:  Greenough didn't develop the fish.  Steve Lis, a San Diego kneeboarder, developed the fish.  Greenough was responsible for the "Spoon,"  (among other things) another highly influential development in the evolution of surfboard design.

For the topic of this thread, his Anderson boats don't really belong, I find them quite attractive.  However, his first attempt at boat design, a fully enclosed Boston Whaler, does fit.  There is a pic of it within this article about George:

George Greenough

Copy%2Bof%2BaGreenough%2Bwebstie%2B024.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/8/2018 at 12:33 AM, Zonker said:

Just have to tilt the boat more vertically I would think. Otherwise the shells will spill out of the bowl.

Fellas, we are going to need a bigger bowl....

- Stumbling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, unShirley said:

Indeed.  They are designed and built to cross the Santa Barbara Channel to fish and surf the Channel Islands and they do it brilliantly.

 

BTW:  Greenough didn't develop the fish.  Steve Lis, a San Diego kneeboarder, developed the fish.  Greenough was responsible for the "Spoon,"  (among other things) another highly influential development in the evolution of surfboard design.

For the topic of this thread, his Anderson boats don't really belong, I find them quite attractive.  However, his first attempt at boat design, a fully enclosed Boston Whaler, does fit.  There is a pic of it within this article about George:

George Greenough

Copy%2Bof%2BaGreenough%2Bwebstie%2B024.jpg

That looks like an oil rig lifeboat.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ perhaps, and George may have been influenced by oil rig lifeboats.  However, I suspect he was more heavily influenced by some rough and wet crossings of the Santa Barbara Channel.

 

Here is a different pic in which it is more evident that he modified a Boston Whaler.  I have seen the boat in person.

Image result for boats designed by george greenough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Those things look a whole lot better from inside on a cold, wet day.

That said, they are really hard on your vision from looking through them at a blurry world..

Instead of using isinglass, this system is really cool;

http://www.rainier.com/boat-windows/

 

 

Catalina-Hardtop-Enclosure.1-1024x768.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that different from the 1/32 polycarbonate we have in the front of our dodger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks$ like very nice $tuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hobot said:

Instead of using isinglass, this system is really cool;

http://www.rainier.com/boat-windows/

 

 

Catalina-Hardtop-Enclosure.1-1024x768.jpg

Yes.  It's a nice way to go.... and not for anyone who is allergic to spending money... lot's of it.

I liked mine on the last boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks great, but is it that much better than a thick pane of Makrolon AR2? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note the enormous holes in the enclosure right behind the traveler. The idea of a dodger is to keep rain/spray/wind out of the cockpit.  That is a canvas maker that doesn't sail. The gap should be minimal or plastic grommets to take the ropes through with tight clearances.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the web page for those enclosures, they say it's a 'proprietary blend' plastic, but also indicate they use both acrylic and polycarbonate. 

Acrylic is nice and clear, is easy to work with, but not very impact resistant; likes to crack and craze (never use alcohol on it!, especially the extruded grades)

Polycarbonate has 40 times the impact resistance of Acrylic.  Note that 'Lexan' and 'Makrolon' are just trade names for polycarbonate. 

They ALL have issues with long term exposure to UV to varying degrees.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - if I spent the coin to get those admittedly very nice "windows" I'd get snap on canvas covers for them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going with a hard-top dodger anyway (in the photo above) why not make the whole thing hard and install opening ports? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder who designed that? pretty nice hollow in the bow, good sheer and useful motor mount. Not my design choice but if you want serious interior volume and no weather decks and a large forward pedestal cockpit it’s not bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

I wonder who designed that? pretty nice hollow in the bow, good sheer and useful motor mount. Not my design choice but if you want serious interior volume and no weather decks and a large forward pedestal cockpit it’s not bad. 

It's one of Bob's designs. ALR has a boner on for Bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2018 at 12:43 PM, Zonker said:

Note the enormous holes in the enclosure right behind the traveler. The idea of a dodger is to keep rain/spray/wind out of the cockpit.  That is a canvas maker that doesn't sail. The gap should be minimal or plastic grommets to take the ropes through with tight clearances.

They didn't do it that way so the crew could use bigger ropes if the wind picked up? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sail4beer said:

I wonder who designed that? pretty nice hollow in the bow, good sheer and useful motor mount. Not my design choice but if you want serious interior volume and no weather decks and a large forward pedestal cockpit it’s not bad. 

"nice hollow in the bow"?  You know nothing about yacht design.

'good sheer"?  What the hell does that mean?

An aft mount for the dinghy engine is one of the big positive points?  Are you kidding?

Nothing you mentioned overcomes the tragic hull shape and ridiculous deck layout.  It is simply a POS design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know nothing about yacht design.

Nothing you mentioned overcomes the tragic stupidity evidenced in all your posts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, now I get it.

Nice one!! 

Pick a boat designed for the masses and not a one off for a specific client.

The design may be ugly to your eye, but it was designed and built the way the guy with the money wanted it built. That makes it a great design.

Hollow bow entry sheds any water  from a wave and keeps the bow up and the sheer has a nice shape to it complemented  by the sheer stripe. Rather attractive to me and purpose built for a tougher environment than you can handle Air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlR said:

Sweet baby jeebus.  Another eye bleach candidate.

sbj.JPG

It looks like a Dix design. Not saying it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sail4beer said:

Hollow bow entry sheds any water  from a wave and keeps the bow up and the sheer has a nice shape to it complemented  by the sheer stripe. Rather attractive to me and purpose built for a tougher environment than you can handle Air.

"Hollow bow entry sheds any water from a wave and keeps the bow up"?  Just to score points with the guy whose cock you love to suck you will just make up silly hydrodynamic theory?  My, I thought you were a Beta, but even that would be a step up for you.  Just look at yourself!  A man would be ashamed.

Ooooh, the sheer and the sheer stripe are parallel!  Doesn't that just make up for this POS hull and deck?  Guess that stripe makes the boat a wonder in all conditions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chester said:

It looks like a Dix design. Not saying it is

You owe Dudley Dix an apology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the boat may have been built for someone with a disability and I didn’t know it was a Perry design. But anyway, go on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

How about the boat may have been built for someone with a disability and I didn’t know it was a Perry design. But anyway, go on...

You would have to have a disability to pay a designer who drew that POS for you.

Hey, there's something dribbling down your chin!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AlR said:

You would have to have a disability to pay a designer who drew that POS for you.

Hey, there's something dribbling down your chin!

You know, you are one flaming asshole. Fuck off.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

Maybe I should have said “fine entry”. My bad 

No, you just should have called AIRhead an asshole troll.

And then put him on ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

You know, you are one flaming asshole. Fuck off.

Noted you have not attempted to defend that ugly POS of a boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

No, you just should have called AIRhead an asshole troll.

And then put him on ignore.

I like watching the mistakes you are making in your refit.  Tells us all what we need to know about your knowledge base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

Maybe I should have said “fine entry”. My bad 

You're not helping yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m guessing it took you a while to peruse Perry ‘s Catalogue of designs to find one you don’t like because you were quiet for a whole week.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sail4beer said:

I’m guessing it took you a while to peruse Perry ‘s Catalogue of designs to find one you don’t like because you were quiet for a whole week.

 

Naw.  Some of us have lives.  It's easy to find Perry boats that are ugly.  He designs cartoons of the Edsels of the sea.  Low IQ folks love that stuff.  Look like the boats that were in their preschool books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites