Pilothouse Variations -- Boreal

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Panope

A quick sketch to go with the above.

The raked stem boat will likely have:
-more reserve buoyancy
-drier decks (because of flare)
-more deck space
-stronger anchor roller support
-head-stay can be placed further forward (unless the plumb stemmed bowsprit is stayed).

The need for a large over-hang of the anchor roller is often overlooked on modern designs. A dangling anchor on a pitching boat, will cause great damage to the topsides.

I am with you here Steve, it always seems absurd to have a plumb bow then stick a short bowsprit so the anchor doesn't bash it to pieces. For a raceboat the reduction in windage and weight is useful.

For a cruising boat the drier decks and extra bouyancy are a big advantage. It doesnt need much, and too much overhang makes for more pounding, and a jerkier motion, but a little flair and overhang makes sense to me.

Ideally I would go just slightly less overhang than the second drawing of yours.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by TJ D

(snip)
Regarding the keel, a high-aspect bulb is what we have, and I have complete confidence in it's ability to come away from a grounding no worse off than anybody else. HOWEVER, the engineering is critical. The design brief on RS was that she should be able to structurally survive a grounding at 12 knots. The keel has a fuse pin, allowing it to pivot, while another pin provides deceleration as it breaks through a progressively thicker UHMW channel. The third pin is huge and will not fail. The trim tab on the keel has a crush zone so that it will not damage the laminate as the keel rotates back.

So, these keels can be done to a very high level of strength, but it would take some serious time with the design team to make sure you get there.
(Snip)
Don't forget the water ballast in the new boat, Dockhead! What a great invention that is...

Good sailing, TJ

Thanks for the info on the keel system of RS. Id love to see more details about this as it seems to me to be a critical element of any lift or swing keel design. Sounds like very smart bit of engineering on her.

Agree about the benefits of water ballast.

Any more info about RS?

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

Regarding Hull Flare. There seems to be a misconception amongst many, that hull flare, for some reason, cannot be integrated into a plumb bowed boat. Why this is, I don't know. However, it is definitely not the case. One can draw such into the lines of such a vessel just as easily as with any other bow design.

Misconseption? No, that would be just butt ugly...

However, one rarely sees it in boats with such bows. The most likely, & common sense reason for such, is that those boats don't need it. For they have far more hull volume up forward, than does anything with a raked stem. Thus preventing them from ever nose diving or pitching to the same degree as boats which don't have vertical bows. Given that boats with raked stems have Zero hull up forward to support the weight of the boat, & also to aid in resisting pitching/nose diving.

Rising shear line and the higher freeboard give reserve bouyancy forward. Your misconseption is strange, maybe you think raked bow is made adding volume under raked stem while those opposing your view think it's volume removed above WL... Both are wrong and raked/plumb has not much to do with it.

If they can design plum bowed VOR boats & Maxi's, which at times exceed 50kts, while going downwind, flying spinnakers in winds at times upwards of 50kts, sans said vessels pitch poling. Then I think that designers can figure out a way to safely pull off putting vertical bows in cruising boats. One's with plenty of buoyancy forward.
And, in point of fact, they have been, for a number of decades; well centuries actually. Though apparently, some haven't heard of such feats as yet.

And are terribly wet doing that. But that has nothing to do with cruising IMHO

BR Teddy

[Littlechay]

Can't get quote to work - but on swing keels
====
And yet movable keels are, it seems to me, a huge weak point in a place where you absolutely don't want a weak point, on a boat to be sailed far from civilization. And on top of that, it's hard to get the ballast down where it needs to be, with a movable keel.

It's funny, as Skip Novak seems to think highly enough of such keels, that he specified one in his 2nd high latitude, Expedition boat. Pelagic Australis. Ditto on many other boats which ply such latitudes, many, professionally. And they're a Long, long way from "civilization".

===

Pelagic's keel works well. It is moved by a 3 tonne electric truck winch on a 4:1 reduction and lifts from fully down to fully up in about a minute.

PA's keel is just a scaled up version of Pelagic's and I don't think Skip will shoot me for saying that it is just too big and heavy and doesn't work as smoothly. Raising or lowering it is a nervous affair. It weighs 8 - 9 Tonnes (I forget the exact number but I took it down from the crane operator last time we had it out). We have upgraded the winch and played around with the hoisting cable materials, different sheaves etc. in an effort to make the lift smoother and more efficient and now it's not as bad as it was designed to be .

For those that don't know the Pelagic's don't have any ballast other than the keels; which are basically equilateral triangles pivoted on one corner (the forward top corner when in the down position) so lifting the keel means lifting all of the boats ballast. with the keel up the bottom of the hull is near as dammit flat and the boats can dry without needing supplementary supports.

The rudders also pivot up and aft, much like a sailing dinghy.

Some pics of PA's keel and rudder on this page Pelagic Expeditions Fleet Overview

On Kiwi Roa - very nicely built boat, definitely one-mans creation and unlikely to be copied. It is very much an engineers boat (I like that). Lots of very sweet features, gismos and gadgets on it.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

I am with you here Steve, it always seems absurd to have a plumb bow then stick a short bowsprit so the anchor doesn't bash it to pieces. For a raceboat the reduction in windage and weight is useful.

True!

For a cruising boat the drier decks and extra bouyancy are a big advantage. It doesnt need much, and too much overhang makes for more pounding, and a jerkier motion, but a little flair and overhang makes sense to me.

Common misconseption. It's not the overhang but the weight distribution affecting pounding. Thou true with long overhang it's easier to make it wrong.

Ideally I would go just slightly less overhang than the second drawing of yours.

Agree with that.

BR Teddy

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by Littlechay

Can't get quote to work - but on swing keels
====
And yet movable keels are, it seems to me, a huge weak point in a place where you absolutely don't want a weak point, on a boat to be sailed far from civilization. And on top of that, it's hard to get the ballast down where it needs to be, with a movable keel.

It's funny, as Skip Novak seems to think highly enough of such keels, that he specified one in his 2nd high latitude, Expedition boat. Pelagic Australis. Ditto on many other boats which ply such latitudes, many, professionally. And they're a Long, long way from "civilization".

===

Pelagic's keel works well. It is moved by a 3 tonne electric truck winch on a 4:1 reduction and lifts from fully down to fully up in about a minute.

PA's keel is just a scaled up version of Pelagic's and I don't think Skip will shoot me for saying that it is just too big and heavy and doesn't work as smoothly. Raising or lowering it is a nervous affair. It weighs 8 - 9 Tonnes (I forget the exact number but I took it down from the crane operator last time we had it out). We have upgraded the winch and played around with the hoisting cable materials, different sheaves etc. in an effort to make the lift smoother and more efficient and now it's not as bad as it was designed to be .

For those that don't know the Pelagic's don't have any ballast other than the keels; which are basically equilateral triangles pivoted on one corner (the forward top corner when in the down position) so lifting the keel means lifting all of the boats ballast. with the keel up the bottom of the hull is near as dammit flat and the boats can dry without needing supplementary supports.

The rudders also pivot up and aft, much like a sailing dinghy.

Some pics of PA's keel and rudder on this page Pelagic Expeditions Fleet Overview

I remember helping to pull PA off the rocks after she dragged anchor on the Peninsula. I dont think you were onboard then. Olly was plus Stu and Jess. The hinged rudder was the bit we were all worried about, I think the keel was half up so she could tuck into the shallows, so she was kind of sitting on the rudder. Especially worrying given the problems SW had with PA's rudder breaking when she was commissioned.

Anyway she popped off with no problems but it made me think hard about some of the lifting keel issues.

Then again I was pretty envious of the way you guys put her on the beach up in Seno Pia to fix the prop. Wished we could have done that to fix Sos's rudder... brrr

[Littlechay]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

I remember helping to pull PA off the rocks after she dragged anchor on the Peninsula. I dont think you were onboard then. Olly was plus Stu and Jess. The hinged rudder was the bit we were all worried about, I think the keel was half up so she could tuck into the shallows, so she was kind of sitting on the rudder. Especially worrying given the problems SW had with PA's rudder breaking when she was commissioned.

Anyway she popped off with no problems but it made me think hard about some of the lifting keel issues.

Then again I was pretty envious of the way you guys put her on the beach up in Seno Pia to fix the prop. Wished we could have done that to fix Sos's rudder... brrr

Right I wasn't aboard then. Did the SG trip, think we saw you in Stanley when you were waiting for SOS; she came in with the S-shaped mast right after getting knocked down about 60 miles from us when we were slipping around in oil dealing with a blown gearbox seal. Then I was off until the Beagle channels trips later in the season.

Have you seen Ollies latest adventure? Kayaking from Greenland to the UK.. search for "in the wake of the finnmen" online.

PS we have changed PAs rudder for one to the same scantlings but built in steel now.

[Panope]

Originally Posted by Snowpetrel

I am with you here Steve, it always seems absurd to have a plumb bow then stick a short bowsprit so the anchor doesn't bash it to pieces. For a raceboat the reduction in windage and weight is useful.

For a cruising boat the drier decks and extra bouyancy are a big advantage. It doesnt need much, and too much overhang makes for more pounding, and a jerkier motion, but a little flair and overhang makes sense to me.

Ideally I would go just slightly less overhang than the second drawing of yours.

Ben, a while back, I penciled (computered) a trailerable cruiser with a nearly plumb stem. I tried very hard to come up with a better "mouse trap" anchor system.

The anchor shank occupies a narrow cavity embedded in the stem. The problem is this would require manual (with a boat hook) orienting of the anchor to have it enter the cavity 'backwards'. Also, great geysers of water may be ejected upward when driving into head seas.

Ultimately, I abandoned this idea in favor of a short, pivoting bowsprit (with conventional roller) because the sail rig desperately needed more length.

Steve

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Not so simple.. That is true only if the criterion has been LOA and deck area, if the criterion were LWL the deck area would be larger with raked stem and the result would be just the opposite.

BR Teddy

Yes --

Plumb bow does not give any GRADATION of buoyancy -- when the bow is raked and flared, the buoyancy increases sharply with immersion in a wave and lifts the bow over.

I'm sure there's more to it than I understand, and I will take the suggestion from Uncivilized to read Dashew on the subject, but what -- possibly little -- I do know about it, comes from actual experience with boats with plumb bows and very fine entries, and the ones I have been on like to bury their bows in waves, which is no good at all for the sailing I do.

Many boats with plumb bows are also boats with huge freeboard, and that helps because there's simply more distance for more immersion when extra buoyancy is needed, but I don't want to substitute brute freeboard, which obviously costs windage, for a bow appropriate to the type of sailing.

Unless I'm persuaded otherwise by the designer or something I read on here or elsewhere, I want a moderately raked and moderately flared bow, not too fine, to get the bow up nicely over steep seas. Although it will definitely cost me some LWL and some speed in general.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Littlechay

Can't get quote to work - but on swing keels
====
And yet movable keels are, it seems to me, a huge weak point in a place where you absolutely don't want a weak point, on a boat to be sailed far from civilization. And on top of that, it's hard to get the ballast down where it needs to be, with a movable keel.

It's funny, as Skip Novak seems to think highly enough of such keels, that he specified one in his 2nd high latitude, Expedition boat. Pelagic Australis. Ditto on many other boats which ply such latitudes, many, professionally. And they're a Long, long way from "civilization".

===

Pelagic's keel works well. It is moved by a 3 tonne electric truck winch on a 4:1 reduction and lifts from fully down to fully up in about a minute.

PA's keel is just a scaled up version of Pelagic's and I don't think Skip will shoot me for saying that it is just too big and heavy and doesn't work as smoothly. Raising or lowering it is a nervous affair. It weighs 8 - 9 Tonnes (I forget the exact number but I took it down from the crane operator last time we had it out). We have upgraded the winch and played around with the hoisting cable materials, different sheaves etc. in an effort to make the lift smoother and more efficient and now it's not as bad as it was designed to be .

For those that don't know the Pelagic's don't have any ballast other than the keels; which are basically equilateral triangles pivoted on one corner (the forward top corner when in the down position) so lifting the keel means lifting all of the boats ballast. with the keel up the bottom of the hull is near as dammit flat and the boats can dry without needing supplementary supports.

The rudders also pivot up and aft, much like a sailing dinghy.

Some pics of PA's keel and rudder on this page Pelagic Expeditions Fleet Overview

On Kiwi Roa - very nicely built boat, definitely one-mans creation and unlikely to be copied. It is very much an engineers boat (I like that). Lots of very sweet features, gismos and gadgets on it.

Well, that's encouraging. I have not ruled out a movable keel and I would be delighted if I could be convinced that it can be made really reliable and strong. And with proper distribution of mass.

I will study the links; thanks very much.

[Littlechay]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Well, that's encouraging. I have not ruled out a movable keel and I would be delighted if I could be convinced that it can be made really reliable and strong. And with proper distribution of mass.

I will study the links; thanks very much.

Just adding material with this not recommending lift keels.

In fact as previously stated I don't like them. An unballasted swinging centerboard that swings up into the ballasted part of the keel is as far as I would go.

Here's another variation on the expedition machine. Take a look a Fleur Australe Phillipe Pupon's boat - there's a man who has done a few miles. I quite like this one

[lamadriver]

Saw this hard dodger while walking around Hobart today




Sent from my iPhone using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

Regarding Hull Flare. There seems to be a misconception amongst many, that hull flare, for some reason, cannot be integrated into a plumb bowed boat. Why this is, I don't know. However, it is definitely not the case. One can draw such into the lines of such a vessel just as easily as with any other bow design.

However, one rarely sees it in boats with such bows. The most likely, & common sense reason for such, is that those boats don't need it. For they have far more hull volume up forward, than does anything with a raked stem. Thus preventing them from ever nose diving or pitching to the same degree as boats which don't have vertical bows. Given that boats with raked stems have Zero hull up forward to support the weight of the boat, & also to aid in resisting pitching/nose diving.

The point of a raked (and flared) stem is to increase buoyancy as the bow is immersed. It's like a variable rate spring on an off road vehicle where the spring rate is mild at first but goes up when the spring is compressed.

This is a powerful means to prevent the bow from being buried without needing a huge amount of freeboard. Obviously such boats, like all boats, are designed to sit on their lines, so the static buoyancy is appropriate to the loads. I don't understand the comment about "zero hull up front to support the weight" -- the weight is supported obviously. But when a wave tries to get over the bow, a whole bunch of extra buoyancy comes into play.

Or you could think of it from the other direction -- a raked and flared bow reduces the wetted surface and provides a relatively finer entry when the boat is on her static lines, while keeping a whole bunch of buoyancy in reserve when needed.

You sacrifice LWL to get this, and you also sacrifice fineness of the entry since you have to pack the same amount of buoyancy into a shorter length of hull. These two issues are the reason, in my opinion, why plumb bows have become popular on certain types of boats -- it's a choice of giving up resistance to submarining in favor of speed from the gain in LWL and finer entry.

Although I care a lot about speed, I will not be making this tradeoff in that way.

For me it's an absolutely first priority design criterion, to keep the bow above water in rough weather. I absolutely don't want green water at 2C coming over the bow. Been there and done that.

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

If they can design plum bowed VOR boats & Maxi's, which at times exceed 50kts, while going downwind, flying spinnakers in winds at times upwards of 50kts, sans said vessels pitch poling. Then I think that designers can figure out a way to safely pull off putting vertical bows in cruising boats. One's with plenty of buoyancy forward.
And, in point of fact, they have been, for a number of decades; well centuries actually. Though apparently, some haven't heard of such feats as yet.

No one questions that. Of course you can have "enough" buoyancy, but the boat will behave worse in heavy sea conditions, be wetter and harder to handle. You don't care on a racing boat where you will deal with all that behavior for the sake of speed.

For cruising boats for mild latitudes, it's also ok, especially if you're building huge freeboard anyway for the sake of interior volume a la Hansa etc.

But on a high latitude cruising boat, in my opinion, this is a very poor tradeoff.

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

To the best of my knowledge, the Dashew's boats have their chain located in it's own (open) locker, forward of the boat's WT bulkhead.
The "weight issues" being taken care of by a full length, plumb bowed, buoyant canoe bodies. With plenty of volume in their forward sections.
As having the chain & ground tackle fully out of the living compartment keeps things much neater & cleaner.

Yes, getting weight out of the bows is crucially important for all of these issues, and the fundamental idea of the Dashew boats -- which is a big increase in LOA without any increase in interior volume in order to get weight out of the ends, get D/L down, allow a narrower beam, etc., etc., -- this is all good and just a great tradeoff which I am definitely going to make.

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

In addition to which, in those boats, the forward 3-5m of the vessel is used for stowing such 'heavy' items as; sails, warps, fenders, awnings & the like.
So there's not a gigantic buoyancy challenge going on there. But it's easy enough to design it into boats which have vertical stems.

And if one looks at the traditional "cruising boats" going back almost a century, if not further. Their forepeaks as well, were dedicated to the storage of such similar items.

It is my belief that most cruising boats are seriously underbuilt, at least for the kind of sailing I do. My present boat has different pros and cons, but one of the big pros is that it is finally, after a lifetime of sailing different boats, strong enough under all circumstances. She is ridiculously overbuilt, with chainplates more massive than on a Swan 90, through-bolted bulkheads, massive frames and stringers, etc., which means she is just right for my taste -- finally a boat with a hull which doesn't "work" in a seaway in storm conditions. The next boat must be at least this strong.

There are a large percentage of cruising boats which are lightly, or under built. Without question. But then again, few take them to extreme latitudes, where the weather & sea conditions vary between brutal & extreme.
And at a certain point, a boat becomes so stout, & heavy that she can't fly enough sail in light air to make any speed. And her gear is so expensive, as to bankrupt all but those with the fattest wallets, or corporate backing.

Well, it costs more to build a boat which is both strong and still reasonably light, but the cost is not necessarily prohibitive. My present boat has D/L of less than 200 and is a fine sailer, despite having more or less conventional use of volume below without extra length a la Dashew or empty ends. This gets easier as a boat gets larger, I think. Lightness in my case comes from fully cored hull and not packing too much into a long boat. And from light weight turbocharged machine which more than makes up for the weight of a heavy duty generator. My boat is 20 metric tons light ship but that's not "heavy", when spread over nearly 50 feet of waterline. It gets even easier with another 10 feet of length.


Another thing, for high latitudes -- "flying enough sail in light air to make speed" is not necessarily a high priority. You're not racing. I don't have any light air sails whatsoever at the moment, and I'm not really suffering -- I just use the motor in wind too light to move the boat (often, under 10 knots if the wind is behind the beam). A very high level of strength is 1000x more important than light air sailing ability, for me. I do want to improve light air sailing ability, just because I love to sail, but this is just not the top priority, and I sure as hell am not going to sacrifice strength for this.




[QUOTE=UNCIVILIZED;2119001]Draft is a compromise yes. However it needn't be deep simply because a vessel is 20m long. Properly designed, one can achieve a 2-3' deep canoe body in a 60' vessel. Such a proven is fact.
So, given that, if you add 3-5' of keel, your draft is still fairly shallow.

On the "smaller" 2 Sundeer's, their draft is 6'. While on the 64'er, it's 6.5' Even on the Dashew's last boat, Beowulf, which was by no measure, small, her draft was only a bit over 7'. And by all reports, all of these boats sailed upwind better than most things other than flat out racers.

The "trick" is integrating the design. And having all of the boat's "components"; hull, keel, rudder, rig, work together, for exceptional overall performance. Until this is done, then better performance cannot be achieved. And then, all of the design dictums of the '50's, or even '80's, apply.


Yes, the Sundeer is a huge inspiration to me for these reasons. Great sailing boats, genuine 250 mile a day boats, with modest draft, modest rig -- everything you want for my kind of sailing.

I don't know what the secret is. Maybe it's just down to narrow beam and great length enclosing a modest interior volume, and with weight kept out of the ends, allowing the boat to be driven with a modest amount of power. Your point about the design's being well executed ("the trick is well integrated etc.") is well taken, but I doubt that the Sundeer is the only well executed design in the world. Like sail trim, this is fairly obvious, isn't it?

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

It's funny, as Skip Novak seems to think highly enough of such keels, that he specified one in his 2nd high latitude, Expedition boat. Pelagic Australis. Ditto on many other boats which ply such latitudes, many, professionally. And they're a Long, long way from "civilization".

Sure, I didn't say it's not possible. But Novak's boat looks like a trawler underneath and carries 2 1/2 tons of fuel. It's probably the most practical approach for truly extreme high latitude sailing, exploring really, but again this is also not exactly what I'm looking for.

But a swing keel could be ok. I can imagine how that works structurally, plus it will swing up on impact. It can be weighted.

Need to study this more.

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

There are hundreds of designs out there with moveable keels. On both professional, & recreational boats. It's a choice, but the systems & designs are proven.
For example: The owner of the boat "Rocket Science", to which I earlier posted a link, chimed in with the abridged specifics on how strong their bulbed fin keel is. As well as the spec's which it was designed to, regarding withstanding impacts.
It's VERY strong, & also has multiple layers of protection built in.

OK, I will keep studying and thinking about moveable keels.


Dashew taught us that you can have a fine sailing 64' boat with only 2 meters of draft (my present boat has 2.4). But still -- draft is the sine qua non for really good sailing upwind, isn't it? Draft and aspect ratio? I have heard over and over again from so many smart people that there is simply no substitute, yet we do have those Dashew boats. And I would be perfectly happy with the sailing performance of a Sundeer, only I doubt I could achieve that performance in the same length and same way, because I need a bit more space and carry a bit more crap, and a few more people, than Sundeers were designed for.

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

Not just on layouts, but for incorporating things such as using your fresh water for ballast.
As, for example, if I build a 40'er, I'd want her to have BIG fresh water tanks, as far outboard as I could get them. And when I do the math on what's both possible, & reasonable in this regard, it's not too tough to use fresh water ballast to reduce her angle of heel by 7 deg.

Ah, water ballast. I had forgotten about that.

I used to be a big enthusiast of that, but then I saw the specs of the Kanter Bougainvillea, which had optional water ballast. Heel could not be reduced by any kind of 7 degrees, more like 1 or 2, which didn't seem worth the effort, expensive, complexity, and hull volume required. 7 degrees would probably be on a very light racing boat with tons of empty space for water ballast tanks -- cruising boat is different.


But it's not off my list. And like you said -- it's possible to do some halfway water ballast just with your fresh water tankage. The only problem with that is that it only works optimally when you have about 1/2 supply of fresh water. If you're full or empty it doesn't work at all. Maybe if you're producing water with a watermaker you could arrange to maintain your water supply at about the right level to have effective water ballast from fresh water tankage -- would be a neat trick.

I could try it on my boat actually. I have 1000 liters of fresh water storage -- one ton of water -- in two 500 liter tanks midships and quite far outboard on either side. Connected with a balance pipe. Would be simple to put a valve in the balance pipe, and fill one tank by gravity on the wrong tack. Only problem is I would need to have right at 1/2 tank, and since I don't have a watermaker, I am using the whole tank volume. Maybe just for experimental purposes it would be worth trying. I get accurate heel data from my Airmar stabilized compass so could accurately measure the effect.

[lamadriver]

Ive been traveling for a few days but wanted to reply.

If I won the lotto i'd take a hard look at the Boreal 47, im super impressed with many of the features.

But until then im stuck with what i have !

My boat Spailpin is a 38 dix pilothouse, professionally built round chine steel.. Its not a real pilot house but a raised saloon. I single hand mostly and have high latt dreams. This configuration was a must for me . I live in the raised saloon while on passage. I can see the sails, , the multi function instrument at the chart table and see whats going on out side at all times while staying dry and not exposed.

Dix is an interesting designer form RSA , he is famous for his mini transat's , and dingy kits. He has designed larger boats and there are a few of them out there IMO the 38 and 43 PH are good deisgns, not true expedition sailboats but a compromise for someone who intends to operate in these enviornments part of the time.

Dix 38 Pilot radius chine steel cruising yacht

Dix 43 Pilot radius chine steel cruising cutter

I really want to build a hard dodger.. the problme i have is the space between the coach roof and the boom. I currently have a soft dodger.

The issue i see with dodgers is anyone can make a functional one but making a functional and asethic one is hard.

Any one want to help me design one? LOL

Here are a couple of dodgers on dix boats:

Dudley Dix 43 foot Custom Aluminum Sailboat

Brian is building a 43 ally PH and doing it right. He has a neat blog. Here is post on the dodger.

Building Odyssey

My friends Jeremy and Anita have on eon their 43 PH.Jerrican is steel and they fabbed it out of Ally . It took 2 trys to get it right.

https://syjerrican.com/

his has been a great thread with lots of great info.

LD

[Terra Nova]

Water ballast simply does not seem practical for a cruising boat. Makes no sense to me.