Question re hull designs that reduce risk of fouled props, keels or rudder

[a64pilot]

Once you learn how to back and fill, you can maneuver a full keel, pretty well. Then there are bow thrusters.
I don't have one and won't likely spend for one. But maneuverability has not yet been an issue

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

...How many docks will you ram because of the poor maneuverability in exchange for the rare event of catching a pot.

Lol...how often do people blame the tools rather than their methods.

Most of the banging I see are racers who depend on that lightning maneuverability to show off.

Slow and easy with a solid foot in the water and the ability to survive a grounding is not something I will trade off in the waters I ply.

[sailor1924]

Traditional full keeled hulls are in no way immune to the dangers of catching a pot line. I was aboard a full keeled 55' gaff rigger, motor sailing north of Cape Cod in full daylight, 30 some year ago, when the suction of the prop pulled a pot that looked to be clear into itself. The boat at 45 tons came to an abrupt halt with a bent shaft that was unusable even after the skipper went overboard a cleared the line.
That boats prop was centerline in an aperture behind a full keel. This experience caused me to install spurs on my old boat and I'm wondering if a prop guard wouldn't be smart on my current boat. At my age there's no way I'll go overboard north of Cape Cod.

[Pelagic]

Sailor 1924, how long was the shaft from the cutlass bearing ?

I can see my prop sucking in a crab line but my 2.5" diameter shaft has only 0.5 inch of exposure

I cannot imagine it bending.

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

......For the cruiser, there are a lot of factors that get weighed in hull type selection. IMO, nostalgia for traditional types is a poor driver for this choice, and a reasoned look at various configurations is warranted. Lots of room for discussion, but in the end, practicality should rule!

Jim

I agree Jim, but as a full time liveaboard couple, who has cruised remote Pacific destinations for many years .....what would be Ann and your own list of collective design priorities in order ?

Budget say $250-300k for the design and build material you would choose?

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

I agree Jim, but as a full time liveaboard couple, who has cruised remote Pacific destinations for many years .....what would be Ann and your own list of collective design priorities in order ?

Budget say $250-300k for the design and build material you would choose?

Why, it would be very like Insatiable II! Not many changes would be made, but perhaps a rig like some of Sayer's later designs where he moved the shrouds out to t he full beam and avoided the need for runners. There would be better wireways to accommodate all the electrical add-ons that accumulate, the rudder would get a few more degrees of movement, and perhaps a wee little sprit for use with a code 0 or a-kite on a furler. (We're getting a bit ancient for our big symmetrical kite to be fun). One of the aft cabins would be bare of bunks in order to better address storage and workshop issues. We don't seem to need two guest cabins... grandkids grown up and disinterested in sailing! A hard dodger would be part of the design from the beginning, one with a low profile and good glazing... something like Van de Stadt and Dashew draw for their boats.

So, she'd be strip planked cedar, conservative, flat bottomed fin keel, possibly a spade rudder rather than our current partial skeg, likely a Beta 50 (rather than the current Nanni 43 due to parts availability for the marinization bits from Nanni), Flex-o-fold 3 blade, big tanks, no gen set, no watermaker, more solar (or at least panels that are not 25 years old), and whatever new ideas that Jon Sayer could talk us into! We'd try to keep the draft around 2-2.5 meters

Now, I read your post as meaning 300 K$ for design and materials, and not including build costs. If you meant total cost, one would need to shrink the boat down a few feet to say the 40 foot region... or maybe less. A high quality custom build ain't gonna be cheap these days! I know I could not afford to have our boat built from scratch for us! Of course, if I could afford it I'd try to get Gary Macaulay to do the building, 'cause he did such a great job on this one.

As you can see, the issue of pots and entanglement would not be much of a design issue, but I would incorporate guards to protect the gap between hull and the top of the rudder if a spade or the gap at the bottom of the partial skeg if that was the design. We have the latter on I-2, and so far have never gotten anything jammed into that vulnerable area. We'd use 2205 for the rudder post and structure inside the blade, too.

To be honest, I rattled the above off without much consideration. We're very happy with I-2, and we know that at our ages we will not be likely to commission another yacht, so not much thought has gone into what we'd do differently. I suppose one possibility would be some form of motor yacht for our REALLY declining years,but no plans like that just now!

Cheers,

Jim

[SecondBase]

Somehow my bilge keeler hasn't caught a pot yet despite all the nearshore and ICW miles.

The polypro dinghy line I backed over and wrapped around a charter cat prop that was a different story... doable in calm Caribbean water but wouldn't want harder conditions.

[sailor1924]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Sailor 1924, how long was the shaft from the cutlass bearing ?

I can see my prop sucking in a crab line but my 2.5" diameter shaft has only 0.5 inch of exposure

I cannot imagine it bending.Attachment 140013

Sorry, I don't remember or maybe I never knew how far the prop was from the cutlass. The shaft was about 1.5" diameter as I remember it.

[coffsguy]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

We all have our priorities but the reality is that there are a lot of unmarked, unlit, UFO's floating out there to smash into

The Vendee Globe illustrated that!

Also, in the majority of the cruising world, there are NO Coast Guard support nearby.

For that reason, my number one priority when cruising poorly charted areas in W Pacific, is crash survivability be it a floating fish aggregate or a coral reef.

My long heavy keel, collision bulkhead, skeg protected rudder and protected prop with minimal shaft exposure meets that brief.

Built of Corten Steel and mostly double skinned below the waterline (originally skinned cooled)...I feel pretty good about surviving most collisions

I will sacrifice light wind speed and turn on the engine when needed for that piece of mind.

Attachment 139990Attachment 139991

You raise some interesting points Pelargic. I like the idea of a longer/flatter keel however there's seems to be a big tradeoff in windward performance ...
Can this be overcome somewhat with a centreboard or drop keel of some description. I know it is not unusual on some high-end brands but was under the impression centreboarders or daggerboard keels weren't popular because of potential mechanical issues and difficulty keep the cavity clear of marine growth.
Are there any CF members who can give me an insight into the advantages or otherwise of retractable keels?

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by coffsguy

You raise some interesting points Pelargic. I like the idea of a longer/flatter keel however there's seems to be a big tradeoff in windward performance ...
Can this be overcome somewhat with a centreboard or drop keel of some description. I know it is not unusual on some high-end brands but was under the impression centreboarders or daggerboard keels weren't popular because of potential mechanical issues and difficulty keep the cavity clear of marine growth.
Are there any CF members who can give me an insight into the advantages or otherwise of retractable keels?

The relative importance of windward performance is a personal choice and I think it's influenced a lot by how you intend to use the boat. I can be bewitched by a high performance yacht that seems to magically sail almost right into the wind as much as anyone. There's almost nothing like it on a beautiful day! But offshore or even coastal cruising when I'm trying to get somewhere, I usually avoid sailing to windward because it always seems like the winds are either not strong enough to make much progress or they are too strong and waves too big to be comfortable. So, unless it's that rare day offshore when the winds are moderate, when they're coming from where I want to go (seems usually), I either crack off to a wind angle that's more comfortable or motorsail 10 -15 degrees off the wind with just the main up and sheeted in tight. I realize that eventually fuel will become an issue so you can't always motor sail, but for cruising long distances on a day when the wind is blowing 20 knots from right where I want to go, I'd rather be in a more comfortable boat and sailing 10 or even 20 degrees lower than a high performance yacht could do, and then motorsail for an hour sometime during the day to charge the battery and make up the difference to windward. Yes, a deep keel, high performance yacht is great fun, but for offshore cruising I wonder how frequently the owners enjoy using that capability. Smashing into waves is exhilarating....for the first hour or so, but I guess I'm getting old so now I'd rather enjoy a more comfortable ride. A boat like the one Pelagic posted the pictures of won't win any tacking duels, but due to it's "heft" and hull shape, might actually win the long term 'race' to windward because its crew will be able to sail a few degrees lower, comfortably, just about forever, while "higher performance" yachts crews will get very tired of beating themselves (and the boat) up bashing into waves and wind. Just because the boat 'can' do it doesn't mean I want to very often. All boat designs are compromises and the "sweet spot" is different for us all depending on our own priorities (and age, apparently) and I don't want to criticize others personal choices, but for me I'm happy with a moderately heavy, moderate draft, long fin keel cruising design and I think it's worthwhile to spend some time investigating all the implications of a design choice and doing some deep thinking about just which ones are going to matter most to you when you're out cruising.

On centerboards, I don't own a boat with one but up here in 'Hinckley country" there are a lot of them around. Most of the owners I know don't seem to use them very often, at least while coastal cruising. After awhile, they seem to think it's more trouble than it's worth to lower it and then crank it back up just to gain a couple degrees during windward tacks but add additional drag when broad reaching or running. Offshore, while sailing for long distances to windward, taking the time to use it would seem to make more sense. They can be annoying when you're trying to sleep at anchor if they bang back and forth, and they're an additional maintenance item and also complicate things when it comes time to apply antifouling. They've mostly fallen out of fashion for a good reason, for most peoples priorities it's better to fill the space they take up with ballast for additional stability, and maybe add a few more inches of draft to get the same performance.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

Sailor 1924, how long was the shaft from the cutlass bearing ?

I can see my prop sucking in a crab line but my 2.5" diameter shaft has only 0.5 inch of exposure

I cannot imagine it bending.Attachment 140013

It could though. If your engine has enough torque just stopping the prop, the engine torque can bend it, but if that is a concern, that is why drive savers are sold.
Nothing is impossible, we can both be damaged in a grounding too, you far less likely than my plastic boat, but it can happen.
The difference however is that it's less likely in our designs.
You can never reduce the risk of anything to zero, but you can substantially reduce the risk

[sailor1924]

Originally Posted by sailor1924

Sorry, I don't remember or maybe I never knew how far the prop was from the cutlass. The shaft was about 1.5" diameter as I remember it.

Pelagic;
Having slept on it. I remembered that the shaft had been pulled partway out of the inside coupling by the wrap at the cutlass. We considered ourselves lucky that the whip in the shaft kept it from spinning further out and jamming the rudder. We sailed into Cape Ann aborting the cruise to Maine.