Preliminary Sketch

[Willallison]

As a starting point, here's a preliminary sketch for a Head-up O-1.
It uses a number of the elements shown from previous points and (hopefully) ties them together to produce a boat to meet our objectives.
As one should with all things in life, lets start at the front....
Aft of the anchor locker (could be open at top, though I've shown it closed) is a pair of v-berth, with infill to for a double. Headroom here is at least 1.5m. A drop-down ladder provides safe, easy access to the foredeck, reducing the need to use the necessarily narrow side decks (250mm). Then come a pair of storage cabinets or draws, the stbd side doubling up as the instrument binacle for the helm, which is immediately behind it. Up one step into the saloon proper and the aforementioned helm is to stbd, a convertible dinette to port. The backrest flips back to provide a double, forward facing navigators seat. The top of the cabinet in front providing chart room. Immediately aft of the helm seat is a small (1.25m long) lounge. With a leaf from the dinette, this will provide additional dining space. The fridge / freezer could be located under here - possibly in a top loading or draw style. Aft of this is the Galley - 1.25m long. Opposite is the head - not overly large at 1 x 0.9m. Headroom throughout the saloon and head is a minimum 2m.
The aft cockpit is 2m long and has a seat running the full length on the port side, providing good rope and fender etc storage and a separate, externally vented gas locker. A wet locker is to stbd, immediately outside the rear door to the saloon. There is a gate to the stbd boarding platform. The outboard pod is sufficiently wide to accomodate a main and auxhillary.

Ok - lets see what you've got in the way of darts......
And while we're at it, perhaps we should open up the somewhat thorny topic of styling. Personally, I'll vote for a "classic" look - not too traditional, but at the same time, not some attempt to keep up with the latest design fad (or is that traditional?...;) )

[tom28571]

Will,

Not many darts. In my opinion, this is the best offered so far.

Can you explain the trade offs that go into deciding on a pod mounted engine versus a transom mounted one? I know these pods are in vogue now but are they an over-all positive feature?

One sharp dart is the top overhang in the cockpit. It will need to be pretty high to have both headroom under and a self draining cockpit.

[Willallison]

As always, there are pros and cons in using a pod. 1st and most obvious it greatly increases cockpit space. Boats tend to be a little quicker onto plane, but also run at a slightly higher angle of attack (higher trim). If they extend too far back, they can induce porpoising in some boats. I must admit, my knowledge is somewhat limited on the subject, but they seem to work well.
The latest trend here seems to be to use what they call a 3/4 pod, so you still get most of the cockpit space but the pod doesn't extend so far back. From an amateur builder point of view, however, this becomes a much more complex build.

As far as the extended cabin roof goes, it's confession time.....I've put the cockpit sole (and cabin sole) at chine level, so it wouldn't be self-draining. But with the pod and subsequent full height transom (about 1200mm), this isn't quite as big a problem as it would be with alower transom....

[tom28571]

Ok Will, now I will chumk a dart.

I could not abide a non self draining cockpit. The C Dory comes to mind (a friend has one). Stepping into water in the cockpit just doesn't get it for me. Adding a grate helps but you are still hostage to a bilge pump, stuff always falls in the cracks of the grate and it's always scuzzy under there. If it never rains where you cruise, it better but ....

Now for the pod. I've not had too much experience with them but on one occasion in following waves, the prop kept ventilating, requiring a slow down to get the prop working again. This happened over and over and was a real nuisance. On another boat, porposing was a problem. I expect better design would help avoid these tendencies but it's obvious that the tendency is there.

My view is this. I don't understand the extra cockpit argument. The pod is part of the boat and increases the length for all things but available waterline length AND available room. I say that because I think it would be much easier to build the boat longer with consequent greater room somewhere than to build a transom strong enough to take the increased stresses of the engines out there on that extended moment arm. I can understand a short pod with extended hull bottom that gives a good boarding and swim platform but even that is taking room from the cockpit, not adding it.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I'd love to see a full and objective explanation of pros and cons of the pods and where they might be best applied.

[Willallison]

I could not abide a non self draining cockpit

hmm - had a sneaking suspicion that might be coming - and I have no valid argument for what you say - I agree - self draining is the way to go....that's why they're called preliminary sketches:D

And your comments re the pod are also valid. I suspect that the boat you refer to does indeed suffer from a poorly designed pod. I can also see where you're coming from as far as cockpit space is concerned, but I'm not too sure that I can completely agree with you - if you extend the cockpit out to where the pod ends, then you still need to add boarding platforms, making the boat longer overall. Where pods really come into their own, of course is for repowering a previously inboard powered hull - you simply bolt a pod on and away you go. That's not the case with O-1, I realise.

The cost of building an extra 3 feet of boat would far exceed the cost of 3 feet of pod, I would expect.

A number of designs I have seen have a running surface slightly above the boats bottom - a little like a step. This provides additional lift at lower speeds, but reduces wetted area once the boat is up and planing.

I did read a fairly basic technical article in a mag a number of years ago about the benefits of using a pod and the design considerations that must be taken into account for them to be successful - hopefully I'll still have it somewhere, but in the meantime, perhaps someone else might have some info......

[Portager]

Will;

I like the new layout, except for the non self-bailing cockpit. I like the chart area too. I think you should extend the deckhouse out on the port side, it will provide more room for the head and dinette. If you leave the side deck on the starboard side you don't loose access to the foredeck but you do loose some symmetry.

I found the discussion on pods interesting and very confusing. I thought performance would be better with a longer hull length. In addition, I learned that a main disadvantage of outboards was the CG was too far aft and the pitch moment of inertia was too high which causes porposing. It seams to me that the pod would only agrevate these problems.

I have decided to start a Masters Science degree in Systems Architecture and Engineering (MSSAE) at the University of Southern California (USC), so I won't have as much time to spend on the list as I used to. It seams my daughters have high educational expectations, so I'm going to be underwriting their tuition longer than I had originally planned. Therefore getting the MS will allow me to increase my income to counteract this financial drain so I'll be able to afford "Portager".

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[ErikG]

Mike->
I can't imagine building or owning a boat that I would feel is ugly (Sorry Mike). An unsymmetric profile is just ugly to me.
I mean looking from ahead of the boat it would look to weird in my opinion.

But I too agree that the cockpit needs to be selfdraining.
So what/how could we use the space under the cockpit sole for (if it is to be raised I mean)?

Will->
I do like the profile of your drawing!
The big window area makes me a bit concerned, don't they need more support than in the prel. sketch?

Erik

[tom28571]

Originally posted by Willallison




The cost of building an extra 3 feet of boat would far exceed the cost of 3 feet of pod, I would expect.

A number of designs I have seen have a running surface slightly above the boats bottom - a little like a step. This provides additional lift at lower speeds, but reduces wetted area once the boat is up and planing.



Thinking back on the construction of my latest boat, I do think that adding a pod would be costlier and more work than adding the extra length. My comments on the length referred to making the LOA of both choices the same, including engine. I ditto the comments about repowering inboards with outboards on a pod to maintain weight ballance. On a new design, I have a suspicion that the longer hull with proper ballance is better every time.

I have also seen a number of boats with pods with that shape. I have to wonder if there is real data behind the supposed lift that the little step gives. If the boat is a real heavy, deep-transom thing, maybe, but for a boat like we are working for, I very much doubt any advantages in lift.

[Portager]

ErikG;

You have a valid point and you have a right to your opinion, but a good designer needs to keep an open mind and consider unconventional ideas before instinctively tossing them overboard. Allow you mind to venture outside the box once in awhile, otherwise all that is left is rehashing old decisions.

A cleaver designer would find a way to minimize the visual impact of the asymmetric design, after all we are only talking about .25 m (4"). This .25 m would increase the head from 1 X .9 to 1 X 1.15, a 27.8% increase in area. It would have a similar affect on the dinette. On a boat the size of O-1 I think this is a valuable benefit.

Cheers;
Mike Schooley

[ErikG]

To me a asymmetrical boat in this specific way, to me it would be like an airplane with biplanes on one side and a cessna style wing on the other.

I do agree that a good designer needs to think "outside the box" but to me any successful boat is not only a boat that gives ME what I wan't, it's also a boat that gives a lot of ppl what they want. IE it has to be sellable.

On the otherhand you ARE right, if no one does anything different from what has been done before, we could all stop trying and just start playing golf instead...

And I hate golf ;-)

On the side deck issue, I want to be able to go alongside with any side of the boat, and fastening [fenders] ("bumpers" don't know the proper english word for them). And also handling the lines would be a lot more difficult on one side than the other, and I don't really like that.

ErikG

[tom28571]

Erik,

While I instinctively agree with you on the virtue of lateral stability, I have to remember what Burt Rutan's Boomerang aircraft looks like. Asymmetric in all coordinates.

After meeting Burt and listening to his explanation of the design, I found myself thinking that it is one of the most symmetrical planes that I've seen.

You can probably find the Boomerang on Google. Don't have time to look for it right now.

[Jeff]

Boomerang

[Willallison]

As far as the pod thing goes, Ive sent the feelers out to see if we con come up with some data - unfortunately I'm not that good at digging up this kind of stuff, so hopefully someone can come up with some data.

The assymetrical deck plan is not exactly new - many liveaboard 'trawlers' (hate that term) are being built this way these days and in a vessel which rarely comes alongside a strange dock I can see real benefits. But, as Erik suggested, for a lightweight like O-1, which is highly susceptible to both wind and current, the ability to berth either side-to can be very important. You don't have the luxury of things like covered side-decks to hide what is to most people an ungainly, if not ugly aspect of the boat. However, the upside is that instead of having a head and dinette which are only just big enough, you wind up with considerably more space.
I would be concerned about lateral stability issues. As the design stands, there is probably a slight weight bias to port and with the bulk of the storage available on this sode, the situation would tend to become worse as owners load up their boats with gear. You could possibly address this issue with the placement of permanent on-board weights (such as batteries). Only a proper weight schedule could establish that. Moving the cockpit seat to the stbd side and swapping the auxhillary, boarding platform etc around would help, but the width beween the side-deck and cabin door is just a tad too narrow for a seat.
How the assymetrical frontal area would effect higher speed stability, I have no idea.....

Erik, The windows are maybe a little bigger than others would draw, though at around 550mm deep, they aren't exactly huge. As a home-build, the owner might break them up into smaller sections, making each pane smaller. But one of the the most important aspects of a boat (after safety of course) is how it feels. And there's nothing I hate more than a boat which feels dark and closed in - the ability to sit inside on a cold wet day and acually look out is VERY much underrated these days, I think. But as you suggest - this is simply a preliminay sketch, so all these things must be examined further...

[Willallison]

Same boat with the freeboard raised about 150mm. This allows sufficient height for the cockpit to be self-draining, but still retain the overhang. Alterations to the transom include lengthening the running surface and sides to effectively eliminate the pod - good or bad who knows.
With a little tweaking, I'm sure I could improve the looks somewhat....thoughts?.....

[Polarity]

Not a very constructive comment, but,,, I like her! :D
She has a nice balanced feel to her,

I would want to work on the interior layout and I might just whizz her into rhino and see what she looks like... - sorry I have not contributed but after I lost my evolving design in the HD crash I have not really been able to get back into it. :rolleyes:
Now where is the coffee!

Paul

[Polarity]

Ha

Me and my big mouth!.. I thought that the hull form would be the one I had already from Will... Nope! ah well its on its way but like everything to do with boats it will take 3 times as long as I thought!

Paul

[Willallison]

The hullform I originally posted should ony need minor 'tweaking' to fit this latest sketch. A little more rake in the bow and some alterations to the transom area....
But surely there must be some darts about to hurl at that hullform - I couldn't have got it right 1st go surely!!
Looking fwd to your post Paul....

[duluthboats]

No darts to throw Will, just wanted to bring this back up. Maybe some of the new members would like to join in. Please,:D :D
Gary

[sailvayu]

OK as the new guy I'll trough in my 2 cents. First i like the 2nd sketh better, still needs some work though. I think you need to get your engines lower in the water, may be just the sketch but I'd check this. You can get good info from the manuf. or from ABYC, I would strongly recomend the latter, as they set the standards. If need be I can send you a copy. Also I would recomend canvas for the overhang, it will save weight, you could zip on an extension for bad days or fold it up on nice ones. I have not seen any hydrosatic data If it were me this is were I would start then tune the Looks to fit. It would look to me thet the LCB is to far aft, the out boards will help but I would look at this carefully it's not always easy to move wieghts around. I don't know about other countries but here in the US you could go to a 10' beam, and maybe as far as 12 depending on the state, but at least 10. If you have some prelim lines and want me to run them through some hydro software let me know. If it were me I'd be focusing on that part first. Hope some of this helps, Looks like you'll get the first cyber design boat:)

[Willallison]

1st up, welcome to the discussion Sailvayu.
You make some good points - lets go thru them...
Its entirely possible that the engine height is way off - the drawing is little more than a napkin sketch to toss some ideas around regarding styling and accomodation plans. Personally I'd be inclined to go for a long-shaft o/b - maybe even extra-long. It raises the CG a little but keeps the powerhead clear of any unwanted wave action. On the downside it makes shielding the noise more difficult.
The canvas o/hang is an interesting idea. As you say it would reduce weight (and up high too). It could complicate the canvas structure somewhat - requiring more hoops and stuff. I guess it might depend on where and how you were planning to use the boat - some would prefer the o/hang, some wouldn't, but in general I think it's a good idea.
I've posted a few images of a possible hullform previously - though this requires some alterations as both bow and stern are slightly different now. In the preliminary hydrostatics, however the LCB lies about 63% aft.......
Take a look at the images and let us know your thoughts - you'll find a number of them in the "Gallery" and maybe a few more in previous O-1 threads.
As far as the beam goes, one of O-1's requirements was that it be legally and easily trailerable worldwide. Alas, that effectively restricts beam to 2.5metres.
Good to have you onboard and look forward to hearing more from you....

[Willallison]

Ok,
I've tweaked the lines a little to reflect the altered bow and transom shapes.

As drawn, the lines produce the following:

LWL 8.5m
BWL 2.09m
Draft 0.3m
Displacement 2060kg
LCB 63.8% of LWL
LCF 62.7 %
AWP 11.7 sq.m
Wetted Surface 13 sq.m
GMt 1.6m
GMl 25.8m

Coefficients:
waterplane 0.66
prismatic 0.62
block 0.38
midsection 0.61
displacement/length 93.4

There's no doubt a little more fine tuning to be done - what do you think?

And surely there must be some more changes for the preliminary profile and arrangement that I posted some time ago.....

[Polarity]

Hi Will

- looks almost what I ended up with from your sketch!
Is she still developable in flat panel ? looks like a complex curve / tumble home aft....
Could you send me that file please and I will try and shoehorn some time into it. - Amongst otherthings we have just opened a 2nd office in Palma so life is a bit hectic - have not even been working on my boat!

Cheers!

Paul

[Willallison]

File is on the way Paul

Should still be developable - there isn't any tumblehome - must just be the angle of the render that I captured.

As for 'no time to work on your boat' - I think you need to re-assess your priorities!!:D

[Polarity]

Thanks Will got that. Sorted out the minor dock damage on the bow there:)
Did have another go at my own Option 1 - presently looks like a hybrid gentlemans launch and a Tug :mad: might need some work !

Paul

[Willallison]

No sense hurling darts at yourself Paul - that's what we're here for!:D Show us what you got.....

Hi Will,

It's Tom L on the road and not posting for a while. There is no particular problem with having tumblehome and flare on the sides of developable surfaces. My boat has them and I think they add to the appeal of some boats.

One point made by Sailvayu is very mportant. I think that much of what has been done so far has been in the styling and interior decorating area. This is the tail wagging the dog to some extent.

Calculating the numbers as you have just done and then making sure that the rest of the work does not compromise these factors too much is vital if the design is to make any sense. Trying to fit in things that will have to be taken out later because they don't fit into the concept is the wrong way round. Maybe the group design is impossible anyway because someone is always taking off on a tangent that has already been discarded as not compatible to the original objectives.

Not to be too negative, I think that we should not drop the project because it has introduced some very useful bones into the stew. Gotta go.

[Polarity]

Ok Will et al, you asked for it!

Like I said, just an idea!

http://www.boatdesign.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=434&papass=&sort=1

I droped my tug/gents-yacht cabin onto Will's hull (sorry Will!)
The wood was just the first texture I grabbed - Im not suggesting cold moulding!

Paul

[Willallison]

Polarity:
Love the pretty pics - would even go so far as to say that I like the varnished timber topsides - but I'll let one you traditionalists maintain all that brightwork....:D

Not too keen on the angle of the cabin roof- looks a little high at the back end.....
And without arrangement drawings it's a little hard to tell, but you don't seem to have left enough room for the head - which, by voters decree, is to be located on the same level as the main cabin / helm etc.

Otherwise, Bravo for a new approach:cool:

[Polarity]

Cheers Will
Wanted to see if everyone said "EEEUGH" before I put in the arrangement..!

[Willallison]

Nothing new from me I'm afraid - just wanted to bring the idea back up front.
Here are the hydrostatics of the hullform I posted before (same thread, earlier post). Any thoughts on how the numbers look?

LWL 8.5m
BWL 2.09m
Draft 0.3m
Displacement 2060kg
LCB 63.8% of LWL
LCF 62.7 %
AWP 11.7 sq.m
Wetted Surface 13 sq.m
GMt 1.6m
GMl 25.8m

Coefficients:
waterplane 0.66
prismatic 0.62
block 0.38
midsection 0.61
displacement/length 93.4

[Tohbi]

in the "style and decorating area," this comment may be premature but, if you extend the sheer aft [even vestigally], she'll appear lower and sleeker.

[rbgarr]

I'm brand new to the forum and noticed that this design looks very much like a larger Creation 20. See http://www.creationboatworks.com

[Dutch Rub]

Now that " creation" has got to be one of the ugliest boats of all time

[Doug Carlson]

Dutch Rub,

I've been active on this forum for about a year now and as far as I can remember you're the first person in that time who has found it necessary to label someone else's work ugly (on your first day of posting too). This forum has been about sharing ideas, contributing information, encouraging development. I hope it continues in that vain. Obviously this boat does not appeal to your eye. Do you have any technical criticisms? Do you have suggestions for improving its aesthetics? Do you have a design of your own that satisfies a similar set of requirements? If you do, we would all like to see it. Perhaps we will learn something.

Welcome to the forum,

Doug Carlson

[Willallison]

Whilst I understand and empathise with the gist of your post, I'm afraid that I have to go with 'the new guy' here...there ain't a lot about that boat that appeals to my eye either!
On the other hand.... it sure would be nice if the interest that our forums (hope you don't mind me referring them to 'ours', jeff...;) )have generated of late, could kick start some constructive action on O-1....

[Dutch Rub]

Doug- I guess Ive already rubbed you the wrong way- I guess I could have been a bit fancier- used words such as less than aestetically pleasing to my eye etc etc, but it all add up to the same thing. If you guys are afraid to call a spade a spade, I believe you are in for some tough times as designer, builders, and (hopefully) marketers of boats.

Now tell me what you like about this boats looks?

[Doug Carlson]

Dutch Rub,

I participate in this forum because I am interested in the design of boats. I spend a fair amount of time here. The majority of that time has been well spent because the contributors have added to my knowledge or asked questions worth thinking about.

Some posts are far more valuable than others. Some members are far more knowledgeable than others. I have the greatest respect for those who have the knowledge and are willing to share it.

I am just an admirer of boats and the people who design and build them.

You don't rub me the wrong way though apparently you would like to. Its just that so far, reading your posts has been a waste of my time and I suspect the time of others.

I apologize to the rest of the members for taking this time to respond to you. It will be the last time.

Sincerely,

Doug Carlson

[SailDesign]

Dutch,
Hows about you post a pic of a boat (or boats) that you think are attractive, then we can see where you're coming from, aesthetically speaking?
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and these guys are beholding something they have worked on, and they like it. We understand that you don't, so let's have a change to fling bricks at your favourite boats ;-))
Steve

[Dutch Rub]

Ill get right on her Steve give me a little bit please.

[Dutch Rub]

....still a workin on er........

[Glen McDermott]

So, Hurrah, and Ouch, The Creation 20 certainly is different, it is a product grown from a desire to meet the needs of families. To that end, you will not find a more accommodating or versatile craft in the price range.

I have a question that you all might be able to help me out with. Since this products birth was market driven rather than consumer driven, and it reflects a truly unique approach to boating, how does one expand the education of the boating public to help them see beyond the status quo? What I mean is, it seems that when people look at what the Creation 20 really does, just don't believe it. Like a 20' boat is incapable of meeting their needs because it is just to small. With better than 13' of cockpit that is 6+ feet wide with comfortable seating for 8 with an additonal two in the bow-rider, the Creation 20 provides enough space for 8-10 people to be comfortably accommodated. I mean they aren't stepping on each others toes and have some breathing space. When this space is vacant, it is a veritable patio, or can be altered to meet the requirements of offshore fishing while providing a hot pot of coffee, a toilet, and shelter from the elements to deal effectivly with that early morning donut and coffee to kill the hang over etc.

I am currently working out the process of bringing this product to market. There has been a good response, but my sales pitch seems to stall when people can't get beyond what they expect 20'ers to be able to do, and this they feel because of what they have seen of 20'ers. I don't have boats at dealers down south, so people really need to have the bug to get up here to see it, and that can be difficult given the bias described.

Glen McDermott
President
Creation Boatworks, Inc.

[lprimina]

It might not be the prettiest thing out there, but it is practical.. My worst idea that I didnt do was to take the WWII amphibs and convert them to River boats for RVs.. (4 years later I saw one used in that way). I thought the concept was to ugly.

[Sean Herron]

Hello...

Mind me, I am a sauce poke...

Seems your beam to overall height is a bit skew, would look much like a trailer on pontoons against a berth...

Otherwise the profile is not so bad, pull back the front glass and leave a more lengthy fwd. turtle deck...

Drop the chine, and go antihedral, and aft sections become a constant section and very easy to build...

Very good thoughts thus far...

Nice thread...

SH.

[Willallison]

Sean,
thanks for the input - seems there are still a few out there with interest in O-1.....
The problem with a boat like this is that you have a conflicting set of requirements. In order to be legally trailered, the boat can't exceed 2.5m beam. In order for people to live aboard for any length of time, you need to provide sufficient headroom. Yet you don't want a boat so tall and skinny that it looks like it would fall over...
For the cockpit to be self-draining, and to provide decent freeboard for its occupants, the sheer must be a given height. But if it's too high, the boat looks stumpy.
To provide standing headroom in the main accomodation spaces, the cabin must be of a given length, but in doing so, the foredeck appaers too short.....
etc, etc....
Bear in mind that this was simply a preliminary sketch, roughly to scale - so with any luck, a bit of tweaking should see an improvement in the aesthetics.....
We are all open to suggestion here, so why not put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard if that's your preferred method) and post a sketch of your own....

[Sean Herron]

Hello...

All that I have left of a bad hard drive crash is a 19 footer that I did years ago - and more applicable a few crew boats and fast ferries...

Crew boats and fast ferries - or even water taxis offer a very interesting study in workable profiles that would make very livable cruisers...

Trouble is fuel costs for anything that you would want to truly plane at the size you seem to be considering...

Anyway - if I can dig up some paper copies - I might be inclined to scan them in...

Old work...

SH.

[rlewis]

That's great if you like the classic look. But, if you want to work in fiberglass, here is an alternative.

PS, any resemblance to a bayliner 288 is purely coincidental!

The flybridge makes more space inside, but the radar wing might be a little bit "over the top" :p

[rlewis]

BTW, anyone looked at the Bruce Roberts Euro 1000? It meets the spec requirements for the option 1 nicely

http://www.bruceroberts.com/public/HTML/EURO9.htm

[Willallison]

Forgive me, but I can't quite see how Bruce Robert's boat - rather nice though she looks - fits into the O-1 profile. O-1 is to be a lightweight, trailerable, outboard powered planing vessel. The Euro 1000 is a heavy, displacement, beamy, diesel inboard boat......
Having said that - welcome to the O-1 thread - it's nice to see there's still a bit of interest in it...

[rlewis]

Well, yes, I guess the Euro 1000 is a bit fat to be trailerable, I did not notice that. And, it is heavy because he sells kits in steel. A similar design in fiberglass would be lighter. I've been trying to find a design for a nice trailerable cruiser. The O-1 is almost exactly what I want, except it is a little bit small. You can trailer slightly larger boats in USA, and those extra inches make a big difference.

So, I drew this design and I thought it looks cool. I like the sleek lines, purely aesthetic. It is really the hull that is important, you can play with the the interios plan and even the upper structure pretty easily.

For some reason all the pre-made design plans I've seen have nice "classic" lines. They would look at home cruising on a lake somewhere between 1962 and 1965. ;-P

Sorry, just kidding about that. Different tastes for different people I guess. Just wanted to see if anyone likes my sketch.

[Willallison]

I'd suggest you read some of the posts written by Portager, he has done a great deal of research in regards to towing boats thru the States. His project is entirely different to Option 1, but possibly more closely alligned to what you're after. O-1 is meant to be a trailer-boat as opposed to a trailerable boat - in other words, something that you can hook onto the back of the family 4WD and take off for a day, or weeks cruising. Anything much bigger than this and you start finding that the launch / recovery / transport aspects start to limit your ability to do this.
I think that you'll find that by far the biggest limiting factor is height - which I would suggest will rule out your flybridge....take a look at Mike's (Portager) threads about his project.....