Pilothouse Variations -- Boreal

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Its mostly plug and play. Autopilot goes to the helm, helm to the hydraulic system, and you are done.

Installation of a hydraulic autopilot pump is slightly easier, but this is because you are utilising the existing primary steering system. The extra effort in installing a completely independent autopilot system is worthwhile in my view. This involves fitting a bellcrank directly on the rudder tube.

Originally Posted by reed1v

Its also safer to have the pilot connected to the heclm rather than direct to the rudder post in case the pilot dies.

An autopilot clutch requires power. If the power fails the clutch is disengaged. A fault where the autopilot "locks" in position and prevents steering is not impossible, but is unlikely.

With an autopilot directly driving the rudder tube it is at least easy to disengage the bellcrank/autopilot connection. It usually involves just pulling a pin. Failure of autopilot hydraulic pump in such a way that it prevents steering is also unlikely but I don't see an advantage for an hydraulic system.

[reed1v]

Polux posted some misunderstandings about double enders. Perry was not the first nor the most prolific designer of double ended boats. This design has been fairly standard among those nations bordering the North Sea and the Baltic for at least the past 1000 years.

Secondly, the safety factor relates to the speed of the vessel. Heading into high seas will force a vessel backwards, resulting in its stern slowing more than its bow, thus potentially upending the vessel. Basic marine engineering 101. If you got enough power to counter the backward force, you are probably ok. If not, you got problems. Sailboats have problems.
The canoe stern, or double ender if you will, allows both the stern and bow to move at the same rate, thus minimizing capsizing potential. Which is the reason behind the old fashion lifeboats that had to be launched through heavy surf.

Thirdly, in large following seas, the double end reduces the potential for breaking waves on the transom to shove the vessel off its course, and possibly getting rolled over. You can research the dynamics of why this occurs. Part of it deals with unequal speeds along the hull's surface.

Fourthly, a double ender will be inherently slower since it will, all else being equal, sit lower in the water than a fat sterned vessel(more wetted surface). Otherwise Polux was somewhat close to the reality.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Polux

Another boat that seems to fit Dockhead criteria is the aluminium Bestevaer 55:









Specially now that they offer a swing keel with all the ballasts on the keel as an option.

It has an attractive retro look with the pilot cutter lines, and square pilothouse. Just a bit more spring in the sheer, and it would look quite a bit like Jolie Brise. Nice boat.




How 'bout that retro transom?

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It has an attractive retro look with the pilot cutter lines, and square pilothouse. Just a bit more spring in the sheer, and it would look quite a bit like Jolie Brise. Nice boat.


Attachment 126269

How 'bout that retro transom?

It is not only retro look is a bit retro designed (to go with the retro looks) but nothing that would count much to sail performance unless you want a performance boat.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Polux posted some misunderstandings about double enders. Perry was not the first nor the most prolific designer of double ended boats. This design has been fairly standard among those nations bordering the North Sea and the Baltic for at least the past 1000 years.

Secondly, the safety factor relates to the speed of the vessel. Heading into high seas will force a vessel backwards, resulting in its stern slowing more than its bow, thus potentially upending the vessel. Basic marine engineering 101. If you got enough power to counter the backward force, you are probably ok. If not, you got problems. Sailboats have problems.
The canoe stern, or double ender if you will, allows both the stern and bow to move at the same rate, thus minimizing capsizing potential. Which is the reason behind the old fashion lifeboats that had to be launched through heavy surf.

Thirdly, in large following seas, the double end reduces the potential for breaking waves on the transom to shove the vessel off its course, and possibly getting rolled over. You can research the dynamics of why this occurs. Part of it deals with unequal speeds along the hull's surface.

Fourthly, a double ender will be inherently slower since it will, all else being equal, sit lower in the water than a fat sterned vessel(more wetted surface). Otherwise Polux was somewhat close to the reality.

I have to say that about double enders i agree with Bob Perry view on the subject (and given the number of boats he designed with double enders I would say he knows something about it):

"I could hear a discussion going on about the benefits of the canoe stern. I thought to myself, “What BS.” If any boat is going to spend it’s life moving forward the best way to end the boat is with a transom. The bow and the stern do very different jobs. The stern should not look like the bow. "

[reed1v]

Originally Posted by Polux

I have to say that about double enders i agree with Bob Perry view on the subject (and given the number of boats he designed with double enders I would say he knows something about it):

"I could hear a discussion going on about the benefits of the canoe stern. I thought to myself, “What BS.” If any boat is going to spend it’s life moving forward the best way to end the boat is with a transom. The bow and the stern do very different jobs. The stern should not look like the bow. "

Perry road the double ended fad started in the 60s and jumped ship when that was no longer in fashion. Has nothing to do with seaworthiness, just marketing.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Polux

You should hear the man that had designed most canoe stern boats on the water, Bob Perry:

"... why did I make the Valiant 40 a double ender? Marketing! It was just assumed that offshore cruising boats had to be double enders and rather than buck that trend I decided to go with it ....

Years later, with the IOR making people angry, a reactionary movement sprung up in the cruising community. Heavy, slow, salty, Colin Archer type double enders propelled by the Westsail movement were the accepted boats for offshore cruising.

For some reason double enders were seen as safer offshore boats. This probably came from the Colin Archer lifeboat tradition. But there were all sorts of strange theories as to why the double ender was the best hull form for offshore. “The stern parts the following seas.” I call this the “Moses effect”. Maybe the stern parts the following sea because there is not enough buoyancy aft for the stern to rise to the following sea. “There is more reserve buoyancy aft.” ...

Yes, a canoe stern can give you far more buoyancy aft than a Westsail type stern but a nice broad transom stern with some overhang will have far more buoyancy aft than a canoe stern.

“In a double ender... I’m not certain it makes a boat more seaworthy or sea kindly. ...

At the other end of the dining table I could hear a discussion going on about the benefits of the canoe stern. I thought to myself, “What BS.” If any boat is going to spend it’s life moving forward the best way to end the boat is with a transom. The bow and the stern do very different jobs. The stern should not look like the bow.

I don’t think there really is a cogent argument for why double enders are the best sea boats. But if you insist on sailing around in reverse I think a double ender makes the most sense....."

Thus nicely making the point once again that yacht design is often heavily driven by fashon over function.

However I will say that a sistership to suhaili (a double ended colin archer type) that I delivered is the only boat I have sailed that would reliably steer herself hour after hour dead downwind with the helm lashed. I think it was more than just the stern. The deep forefoot, long keel, balanced lines (full bow) and long bowsprit all played a factor.

[neilpride]

Originally Posted by reed1v

Perry road the double ended fad started in the 60s and jumped ship when that was no longer in fashion. Has nothing to do with seaworthiness, just marketing.

And its still designing double ended boats, wonder .....

[Panope]

I like the view from the helm. looks like 360 degrees. Staysail tack might be blocking a bit.

The view from the deck-house appears to have an obstruction by way of the rising bow. Perhaps this is a non issue off-shore as the bow may bob up and down enough to give a peek ahead.

Around my part of the world where we have lots of long, rainy, no-wind motorboat rides (inside passage), that house would not be very functional as a watch station.

Steve

[El Pinguino]

I'm a great believer in moderation in all things.

I'm not a fan of canoe sterns nor big fat transom sterned boats .... 'hatchet nosed and shovel arsed' as many are these days.

Merchant ships for many years had 'cruiser sterns' ... not unlike canoe sterns on yachts really. However in the last 40 odd years transoms... which gave the owners a nice flat bit down the back to stow more boxes on... have been the norm. Cheaper and easier to build as well.

Fine most of the time but when in ballast with a decent swell on the quarter?

Shockers....

As a sea would rise under the flat run aft you would suddenly have a massive increase in buoyancy... ship would roll away heavily from the sea and try and round up.
Not nice.

So... given the choice on a yacht for ocean voyaging I would take canoe stern before big fat arse.... but would still prefer what I have.

[Terra Nova]

Perry's Tayana 37 I find very attractive. But he has his opinions, I have mine.

Regarding the benefits of a canoe stern: it is far more resistant to being pooped, while being an inherently stronger structure, better able to withstand the forces of a breaking sea.

Terra Nova, at over 39' is more like a transom-ed 36', but with a small bustle behind the cockpit to store (3) 10-lb propane bottles. That imaginary bustle adds reserve buoyancy, aft. And contributes to TN's nearly 34' of waterline. Sisterships have been known to make 200-mile days, in cruising configuration.

The canoe stern's viability has not been surpassed by the dinghy-garage-stern-ed, modern designs.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I'm a great believer in moderation in all things.

I'm not a fan of canoe sterns nor big fat transom sterned boats .... 'hatchet nosed and shovel arsed' as many are these days.

Merchant ships for many years had 'cruiser sterns' ... not unlike canoe sterns on yachts really. However in the last 40 odd years transoms... which gave the owners a nice flat bit down the back to stow more boxes on... have been the norm. Cheaper and easier to build as well.

Fine most of the time but when in ballast with a decent swell on the quarter?

Shockers....

As a sea would rise under the flat run aft you would suddenly have a massive increase in buoyancy... ship would roll away heavily from the sea and try and round up.
Not nice.

So... given the choice on a yacht for ocean voyaging I would take canoe stern before big fat arse.... but would still prefer what I have.

Not to mention the flat stern sections on those ships pounding heavily while slow steaming or drifting. We once had to get a 240 meter containership underway due to the pounding being so severe that we were worried about damage. The older cruiser and v sterned ships were fine in the same conditions.

Even the slight flat area under my boats narrow stern can pound badly at times. I shudder to think what it would be like on a wide sterned beastie.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Polux

Can you explain that a bit more? With wires it is just a direct system with hydraulics there are a lot more things that can fail.

Less wear in hydraulics. The mechanical parts are allways well lubed, and the rest is fluid in the tubes. The only viable fault is with fastenings of the tubes, which if not done properly can cause vibration related issues.

BR Teddy

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by El Pinguino

I'm a great believer in moderation in all things.

I'm not a fan of canoe sterns nor big fat transom sterned boats .... 'hatchet nosed and shovel arsed' as many are these days.

Merchant ships for many years had 'cruiser sterns' ... not unlike canoe sterns on yachts really. However in the last 40 odd years transoms... which gave the owners a nice flat bit down the back to stow more boxes on... have been the norm. Cheaper and easier to build as well.

Fine most of the time but when in ballast with a decent swell on the quarter?

Shockers....

As a sea would rise under the flat run aft you would suddenly have a massive increase in buoyancy... ship would roll away heavily from the sea and try and round up.
Not nice.

So... given the choice on a yacht for ocean voyaging I would take canoe stern before big fat arse.... but would still prefer what I have.

I believe you and I are on the same page. I hate being pushed down a following sea. If it is running faster than me I would prefer it passed me as opposed to pushing me into the wave ahead and risking a broach. A big flat wide stern looks like inviting green water over the bow and the stern catching up. Some of those look great for good winds and moderate seas not for when it get hairy.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by neilpride

And its still designing double ended boats, wonder .....

No wonder. Bob perry finds double enders beautiful and aesthetics plays a big part on boat design when sail performance is not the main aim:

Bob Perry:
Without bragging too much I think I might be responsible for more double enders on the water than any other designer. I don’t have a total number but it has to be close to 1,500 boats maybe more. I know double enders. I have always been drawn to double enders from the time I was 15 years old....

Years ago YACHTING Magazine wanted me to come over to their mag and write their design reviews. ... They said why don’t you try a test article to see if we can work together. I decided to write an article on double enders. I decided to interview a few other designers for the article and get their thoughts on double enders. I asked each one, “Why is a double ender better?” They all said it wasn’t better than a transom sterned boat. All except Bill Crealock who said the double ender was better but when I asked why he couldn’t or wouldn’t tell me....

But I still like double enders. I’m working on a new 62’ double ender right now. This is the 62’ SLIVER and it is a marvelous, long and skinny double ended sled being built now in Hadlock. I just like the look.

I am often thought of as primarily a designer of double enders. That’s OK. At least I am thought of. The Valiant 40 did get me into the first 15 people inducted into CRUISING WORLD’s Hall of Fame. That made me feel really good. But if you look at my entire body of work I have designed far more transom sterned boats than double enders. For a wide variety of reasons a transom works best.