Bruce Bingham Flicka 20 Plans

Yeah, I've heard the stories about 10,000 lb. boats too and understand the realities of home builds, which are always heavy and over built. My understanding was the lines originally were for a 4 ton, 18' LWL boat and it looked like it, but now the published plans, show a 2.5 ton boat and though I haven't run any numbers or have directly compaired, I find it hard to believe, the origional set of lines can accommodate this level of displacement reduction, particularly given her "fatness" as personally seen, without a redraw and whittling down of that set of shapes. I think this was done when Nor'star started GRP production, which makes a lot of sense, though since they weren't in production for very long (a couple of years?), it's possible Pacific Seacraft made this adjustment. The published ballast ratio was also increased from the high 20's on the original to the low 30's on the GRP. Now this may have just been the hull shell material change, jacking this number, but my understanding (again) is the actual ballast weight was increased, possible sucking up the difference between the two materials and placing it in the casting.

I'll look around to see if I can find the old and new sets of lines, for any obvious differences, but how much you want to bet, the reverse curve along the rabbet is dramatically tighter on the Pacific Seacraft lines, compaired to the early 70's lines? I mention this because, the design of mine I mentioned has a hefty PPI and I can't imagine with a 160 - 180% load and the boat being anything but grossly burdened and suffering terribly underway. Again, I certainly could be wrong about this speculation though I've heard rumors over the years, but never verified it, because the design was never interesting enough to care all that much.

 

I agree its not that interesting of a design to me either but some folks sure seem to like them.

 

Yeah, there's always those that NEED to own a Tahiti ketch, just to complain about needed 10 knots to get off a lee dock or a the lack of maneuverability. The same is true of many "antique" designs. A fellow near here found a Tancook schooner, needing a rig and some clean up. the hull was sound and he splashed her in less than a year, after purchase. He commented about how fast and maneuverable it was, until we met out on the coast. I was in a friend's Hunter 24 and he was killed on every point of sail, was twice as slow in maneuvers and maybe as much as 15 degrees off our pointing ability. I tried to explain this when he purchased this old lass, but now he want's to "do something about it", so I suggested a larger engine. He's still pissed . . .

These antique designs have their place, but still sail like what they are (or once were). They have their place, but a prospective builder or owner does need to have an honest conversation about what they want, need and can live with first.

 

Funny you should mention the Tahiti ketch as a guy I know up here built one probably 40 years ago so it was before i moved here but I'm sure it was a masterpiece based on at least dozen assorted boats he has built over the years ive known him from a Bolger light dory to a Cross trimaran to a Farrier trailer tri to a little Welsford clog and on and on,nothing as big as the Tahiti but every one as fine a job as any of us would build ( He's not a pro but a highly skilled hobbyist). Anyway he took his young family and went cruising but by the time they got to Florida he had had enough, apparently the thing hobby horsed unmercifully going through the great lakes and he couldn't see going further so they sold it and came home. Never did go cruising after that. I actually like the look of some of the old designs but like you say, their time was actually back when their design was current. I don't see the point of building new ones but I admire folks who properly restore originals and keep them alive.

 

I've had some luck with making these "antiques" more palatable to the modern sailor. The lines need extensive reworking and don't expect they to get up and plane off, but they can become acceptable as a cruiser, typically with a lot more internal volume, which most find enjoyable, conspired to faster modern designs. These designs can be made much more maneuverable, slightly closer winded, slightly faster, but retain the look and feel (for the most part) of the antique they fell in love with in the first place. These commissions don't come along often, but I did a nice job (I think) on a 28' schooner a few years ago, designed after a classic in a Chapelle book. It looked the part fiddled sticks and all, but had divided appendages, it's wetted area whittled down a lot, firmed up bilges, etc., etc., etc. She out pointed the original by about 8 - 10 degrees! I also a couple of years back made another classic Chapelle 14' daysailor work much better. The origional couldn't plane off, but after lowering the bilge turn aft, straighten out her buttocks, putting 15% more area on her and other, drag, run and rig modifications, she plans off nicely, yet still has the 45 degree canted transom and other details of the origional, in spite of her NACA foils sections.

 

Yes, that's a better way to go for those who like the "look" of the oldies. In New Zealand back in the early seventies designer/builder John Lidgard did a redesign of the H28 for another company who went on to build in excess of 400 in GRP which is a pretty good production run anywhere but especially in a country with under 4 million residents. I don't know if he modified the lines or not but raised the freeboard by about 4", deeper keel, longer trunk cabin with a step, sloop rig etc. I've also seen several H28's built in ferro, one built by Cooksons if I remember correctly and one of them did a successful circumnavigation as have at least one of the GRP ones. Again I don"t know if the lines were modified for the ferro ones from the original wood ones but I doubt it as most were amateur built. I do remember reading that the one that circumnavigated had the usual steel punching ballast which took up most of the bilge and would obviously have a higher center of gravity.

 

The H-28 was a fairly "delicate" set of lines, even given her general nature. I can't imagine a ferro H-28 with stock lines.

 

John Lidgard modified the H-28 for Compass Yachts in NZ, who built them quite successfully in GRP throughout the whole 70's till about half in the 80's.

It was also the Kiwis who in 1961 started building another modified H-28 in Ferro-cement, and then John Samson started with these Ferro H-28 plans in North America, and spread many other Ferro designs all over the world....

​

 

Here's an attempt to upload the above a bit bigger for better readability, for this I've cut it in three pieces, which I've stuck together again here . . .

​

P.S. - - - It's actually the Left column of page 39, so I've made a mistake there, I'll hope all readers will forgive me that . .

P.P.S. - Note that the mentioned $ 400 for the bare Ferro H-28 hull only concerns the materials cost in 1967, and nothing else, see post #28 for this.

 

The H-28 was likely one of the most copied yachts ever designed, most didn't look as good or perform as well as the origional, but it looked like an H-28 (sort of) . . .

 

Angelique, thank you very much for that find, some really interesting stuff there. I worked up at Greenhithe at a yard next to Ferro Cement Ltd back in the early 70's finishing off a 45ft concrete motorsailer i had built for a customer earlier from a bare hull shell designed and built by Terry and Mick Cookson. Laurie Davidson was the in house designer for Ferro Cement Ltd at the time and they had a rather interesting dumpster, it was an open concrete hull sitting at the dock that, when it was full would be towed out into the river and set on fire and then when it was done it would be towed back in to repeat the process. Par, I really doubt that the H28 lines were changed, not because it would not be a good idea but because most of the folks building the ferro ones would not have the abilities to do so themselves and sure would not be paying a designer to do so. I have an acquaintance here who owned a built to plans wood H28 ketch (we built a new mizzen mast for it) and it was a very pretty little thing in great shape when he bought it but he didn't keep on top of maintainance unfortunately. I think it got cut up and disposed of some years ago . Having been on a few of the Compass yachts GRP versions I can tell you they were a huge improvement and i have no doubt they would have crushed the ketch under any conditions except maybe if it could set a mizzen staysail but then again the GRP one had a masthead rig so bigger spinnaker. I think the original was fractional but I could be wrong on that. Quite a few of the GRP ones were owner finished as almost all production GRP boats in NZ back in the early days were available at any stage from an empty shell on.

 

The original H-28 was fractionally rigged, but a big genie could be hung from the masthead. As to what has been done with them, well there's lots of children only a mother could love, many basstards, but most of the time I've seen changes that hurt if not ruined the yacht's attributes. Of course, there where successes too and it appears you've seen more of these than I.

 

I'm glad you liked it Steve, I forgot to post a link to the entire article, so here it is yet . . .

Boating, Oct. 1967, Vol. 22, No. 4, the ferro article starts at page 37, from there it continues till page 42.

Note there's a magnify button on the left side near the top.​

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The article could be interesting for the OP as well, since he also started the thread:

Beach Sand or Earth Mold for Ferrocement Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete Boat Yrvind Design

On page 40 of the linked article, at the right side, starts a section about Fiber Steel Ferro Cement Boat Construction in the 60's . . . .

‘‘ Fibersteel Construction ​

The construction process developed by the Fibersteel Corp. differs in several respects from the usual ferro-cement process. Martin Lorns, president of the firm, has worked out what appears to be a practical approach . . . . . ’’

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Below page 41, of the Ferrocement article in Boating, with in pic 1 John Samson on top of a bare Ferrocement H-28 hull of $ 400* materials cost.

* Note that's only the 1967 materials cost for the bare hull as it says, also note that's 1967 money, the same value has nowadays a much higher number.

 

Hi Umut, I'll answer your PM in the course of this week, meanwhile best first check the info I've added to post #14.

BTW, regarding your profile page, must say the Ronald Reagan looks like a nice boat to own . . .

Here on June 29, 2005 in the Pacific Ocean. - (Official U.S. Navy Photo by Photographer's Mate 3rd Class (AW) Christopher Brown.)​

 

Damn, I made this boat in 3D with confusing and not very understandable small drawings, thanks for the projects I will use them to complete my model.