Finding plans based on specifics

A commercial yard can build a 50' boat in about 9 months with a crew of 7-8 and full facilities and tools. It will take at least three times the man-hours doing part time and without the crew and equipment. For a yard that adds to about 13,000 hours. Further, that is by trained professionals.

 

And a yard like Bavaria Yachts in Germany with lots of automated equipment can build a 50 footer from start to launch in about a week or two.
Ponder this for a moment.....
I think that Bavaria crank out two or three thousand boats a year - these, along with all the other boats produced by high volume builders like Beneteau, Jeanneau, Hanse and others are one reason why second hand boats have become relatively cheaper in recent years, as there are so many boats for sale now.
30 years ago boats did not really depreciate very much, but they do now. And it was worthwhile back then to build yourself a boat, as you COULD build it for less than what the second hand boats were generally selling for.
And you would probably find that a well maintained second hand Bavaria purchased now would be capable of pretty much everything that you would expect it to do for you - and you can go off sailing very soon (rather than in 7 or 10 years), and probably for much less cost than building your own boat.

 

Guys, all of what you say is true, but what's it got to do with the OP's question? He wants to build, in wood, and with some specific options. It's inconsequential that his options are retrograde, he did his research and that's what he believes in.

It's my opinion that he isn't going to find a stock plan incorporating all of his wishes and that he must compromise to some extent. I say the easiest compromise is lenght. Designs wich have the desired modern optics have less pinched ends and shorter overhangs, resulting in the same interior volume as a longer more traditional looking boat.
Another good compromise is the rig. Modern gear has made a divided plan unnecessary from a handling point of view, and there are more sloop or cutter plans available.
Next compromise is keel form. "Long keel" spans a wide variety of underwater shapes, it doesn't have to look like it came from the 19th century. I think the bigger question here is the rudder, does it have to be attached to the keel or not?
One of the great benefits of having a living designer is the ability to have changes done. A center cockpit and a split rig are normally pretty easy to arrange, but of course one has to pay extra for it.

Actual time and cost for the hull are still going to be under 30% of the total whatever the material and technique, so if he buys a ready made new or old bare hull he isn't saving that much. When buying a fixer upper this size the actual savings come from the ballast, you don't have to deal with buying and shaping it.
To get a real deal you have to buy something that's actually in sailable condition, aka. the good sh boat, but he is not interested in that.

 

My advise about buying a hull and deck is not focused on monetary and time savings alone. They are the largest structural parts, and therefore it would be beneficial to have a reputable yard build them. As far as hull shapes, short overhangs can be seen in designs from the 60's.

 

An excellent and accurate post by Rumars.Which leads to the point of concern;a living designer is a great thing when building his designs-no doubt about that.Might we turn to the slightly ghoulish question of whether there are enough designers of this type of boat in the age range which will see them still above the grass when the tricky stages of the build are reached?
There are probably few young designers with the desire to spend several months working on a design that is only likely to be built in isolation as the royalty stream from series production is a very useful thing over a period of decades,so there is that kind of focus.An existing design,with a group of recent builders and better yet some form of forum or social media is probably a good thing to seek out.No idea how you would do this and I don't suppose too many of the builders would ever say they wished they hadn't spent years building something that sails like a shed.So I'm not sure how you would get an accurate assessment of the qualities of the design in any case.I wouldn't think there is such a thing as the perfect boat for all locations as a wet climate in a temperate region will impose different demands than a hot region.Is the desire to spend time sailing or to have a home that can be moved from place to place?

I'm tempted to just point at The Mother of All Maritime Links: Contents http://boat-links.com/boatlink.html with the recommendation to delve into the ones that look interesting.The thing it won't do is apply a filtering mechanism to even out judgements about difficulty of building or sailing qualities.These are matters best determined by those with a wide enough range of experience to propound objectively and not to just say everything was great-because they have never sampled a range of alternatives.The commitment in such a project is huge and it is essential to do thorough homework.

 

I think the issue is not the designers not wanting to put the time into a one-off design, but owners not wanting to pay for several months of labor. I used to build Carolina sport fishing boats. All of them were one-off designs. These owners wanted something unique and were willing to pay for it. Many of the superyachts are one-off too.

 

I have no problem with people desiring to build boats. I did! I told my wife it would take more than 2 years and I worked pretty hard and it took closer to 6, or about double. The space challenges were enormous as well.

So, my main effort is to help him understand a 42' bluewater boat is going to be easier to build than a 50 footer. You can see by his initial reply that he thinks me wrong in my time assessment, because of bias or presumptions about the time needed.

Honestly, every boat build I have ever followed has the same regret; that it took a lot longer than expected..

A refit of an existing boat that takes two years still beats a full build by factors; especially as length (hull vol) increases.

I have not delved into details beyond that because all guys that build get surprised by time budgets and big sailing monos are not my thing.

 

Warning- the following is a bit incoherent-

I’d argue that a wood composite boat, with a simple hull shape and virtually no interior is the way to go- Amati was hideously expensive when she was out for bids from builders of the usual construction technique suspects- but! Steve Rander’s COVE required no mold, and came in within our budget. ( It also helped a lot that we didn’t go with specced top of the line sinks, etc….. ) A lot of plywood foam boats ~ the same, some actually use the interior as the frame, and if you want a heavy boat, you can have that too! (And fairing time can come down significantly) Our hull came together so fast that visiting the boatyard once a month, we almost missed the building of it. A more monocoque hull makes interior construction simpler etc etc, so it’s a smaller spiral of sorts, and it can be lighter. Cut down on preconceived notions of elaborate interiors (which take the most time & $$$$ BY FAR) . Rig design offers cost improveents too.

There was a San Francisco area yard that did a 30 footer decades ago that basically had a big bed for the interior- the Wylie Wabbit ditto. Go with fabric sacks / nets for storage, bean bag chairs, industrial solutions, etc etc. Schionning’s early cat interiors ticked a lot of these boxes, IIRR.

Another observation I’d make is the sanding time epoxy construction involves. There must be an alternative to that. I only mention it because after I became allergic to epoxy, I started using titebond 3, plywood, and varnish for my canoe hulls, and fairing was almost non existent. Leakage and dings were a pain though, but for bigger boats…..

Boat Design (tm) becomes more & more important…. Which is why I suggested Bedard and Dix, as they have experience building with plywood: there are others, probably on this very site!

The power of limits can be beautiful.

 

If you like single or multichine plywood boats, the construction is much faster and easier. One aspect that you haven't mentioned, is the level of finish. A workboat finish is a grinder to take the high spots and a few coats of paint rolled over. A yacht finish takes a lot more time, money and skill.

 

Steve did a beautiful Herreschoff Interior within budget (~j boat interiors) that still looks new. I couldn’t do that myself- Schooner Creek’s talented & experienced staff did that. Granted, it’s not a Wally or Spirit interior, but that’s the point here. There is a point of diminishing returns with finish work, depending on what you’re looking for. Above is not the best pic, as an example, but if you ignore the bulkhead damage from the rock we just had hit, more than a decade ago it gives an example of the level of finish. Not as bad as the damage a certain class 40 just experienced, but no leaks, and Jespersen did a beautiful job of repairing it.

 

A friend started fitting out a 40 ft ferro hull with the Nav station. He realised after 3 months of work, that although it was an exquisite dispaly of fine wood and joinery, if he wanted to go sailing, he would have to reduce the finish quality. The rest of the boat ended up more Benetau than Swan. Not a bad thing if one area is where you spend most time. You do not need a finely finished sleeping cabin, when all you do is go in there and shut your eyes.

 

Beneteau interiors are pretty sweet- & here’s a pic of our interior when Amati was new

 

It seems unbelievable how much progress has been made in this thread. The OP started by asking about some plans for the project and now we are already talking about what the bar cabinet will be like and how many bottles will fit on each shelf. At this rate, contrary to what many predict, that ship, which is not even known with what plan it is going to be built, will need about 3 weeks from now until the sea trials once finished.

 

All part of a fine madness.

 

I greatly enjoy the lively discussions and offers of advice. Something I would challenge, if I may be so bold, is a link or reference to an active yard offering bare bone hulls. A lot of my requests were "I have to start somewhere" and some of it was which boat designers are still working. Because so many boats are one-offs, its not like I can look up the fix on youtube. I picked ketch/schooner because I think the multiple sails look nice, and I read that a longer boat appreciates more sail area. I also read a longer boat is more comfortable, faster, and safer than a short, fat boat. I've also no interest in staying in a marina. A full/long keel for the same, safety and stability. Though I (really) like the pivoting centerboards I have seen since. I think I've also gone away from the idea of a transom door for the same reason.
The vision for the boat is to be able to travel the world. It needs to be a comfortable cruiser. The idea of building is not just for practicality. Its so we get exactly what we want, and know exactly how it works. Like building one's own house. And yes, my idea is far, far down the road, but some of what we (my spouse and I) have learned, will affect where we move, and the space considerations when we move.
More than anything I appreciate the amount of knowledge and effort everyone has put forth for us. I'm happy to continue reading the opinions being shared, as well as more ideas and suggestions. Being new to this, I have to start somewhere and start making choices. So that's what I attempted. Next thing I know I will be looking at plans for a ferro-hull . Or maybe titanium.