Boat built by eye. Need feedback

So, it looks like the stern gets more narrow than the hull midsection, but could be camera error. I don’t see why you would want to make it narrower aft.

I don’t think you will enjoy 3’ waves to beam. The boat may perform better with some load, so consider adding some buoyancy foam to make it safer if you decide loading makes it nicer.

 

To be honest my tendencies lean toward the look of double enders. From my reading I have gathered that a narrower stern might track a little better. That being said it is much an illusion. The panels yes were cut an inch narrow on either side at the stern, but with the deadrise being greater in the midsection it really hardly amounts to anything in chine width.
And yes my next build I will hopefully have more space and can actually design something more capable. I will have to pick my days with this at the very least!
Perhaps i will add some hardwood floor structure for some weight. Something to consider as i was worried about it being too heavy! Thanks for the reply.

 

My personal opinion is that it will do better at displacement speeds a little heavier. But the downside risk is swamping it, so the transom or well could be full height or foam could be added.

 

The sheer isn't a big deal, should you wish, it wouldn't be a big job at this stage to simply spring a batten and cut down the sheer up forward a bit.
You've got a good enough "eye" to do that.
As Fallguy pointed out, the hull will do better at displacement speeds.
What you've got shows similarities to a western river "Drift boat" only with more transom, (although they are of flat bottom form).

 

Always an option. The panels originally had much less sweep and I only added more as I thought I could always cut it back if I wanted to. You think wind would be an issue high like that?

 

Ah smart. I already have bulckheads in place for benches in the cockpit. Would not be difficult to build in a motor well and foam the whole deal. I worry about the foam getting wet and working against me over time so I'm debating the issue.

 

Always easier to cut down rather than add-on that's for sure, but you built a good-looking hull.
Pushed too fast the stern will squat which will raise the bow, you'll want to experiment a bit with weight distribution.
If the bow is too high, it'll have more tendency to blow down wind.

 

The Construction Standards for Small Vessels requires that all monohull vessels of not more than 6 metres be fitted with flotation.
You can read the parameters on the link above. If you insurer does not require a HIN, Hull Identification Number, you may sneak this past them. Not safe but-----.

From Transport Canada
"Any pleasure craft that is equipped, even temporarily, with one or more engines whose total power is at least 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) or more in Canada, must have a Pleasure Craft Licence before it can be operated."If you decide to stay legal and register the boat when you move up above 10hp, they will ask for a HIN.
You may be able to register it as a Home Built or Experimental (if those categories still exist) and include length, beam, . Then they will get back with the allowable hp etc

If you keep the hp below 10, getting insurance should not be a problem. They will more than likely ask for the HP that you have on it and the HIN though.

Outboards come in various clamp to ventilation plate lengths. 15 short, 20 long and 25 extra long. If you go with the short, throttling down or running down wind, following sea, you will find that the short does not give you a lot of height to keep the water out. 90 pound motor, 185 pound tiller operator, puts a lot of weight on the stern and creates and lack of freeboard at the transom motor mount area

 

I guess that settles the debate. Foam it is. Thanks for the info. I definitely plan on moving above 10hp if the hull can handle it. Sounds like when I flip it I definitely want to put a motor well that is full height inside. Transom is already cut back to carry my short shaft.

 

And be prepared to show your materials receipts when you go in to register.
They want to see that you've paid the Provincial Sales Tax.

 

I have to agree that you have a good eye.

Can a sealed compartment be used for flotation or does it have to be foam filled in Canada? If a sealed compartment is an option, air is less expensive than pour foam and the enclosed space can be useful. I replaced some foam flotation under the stern sheets because it was impossible to clean invasive species the way the foam had been installed. The sealed compartment provides some limited waterproof storage but needs to be vented if it isn't filled with foam. It also needed a vent large enough to empty and dry it out if needed. I found a waterproof 8" diameter hatch on Amazon that has survived a week immersed in rainwater without leaking (I need to fix the tarp). The bow has additional flotation, but is foam sealed in with fiberglass.

Stiffening and interior arrangements might be accomplished along the lines of the boats discussed in this thread.

 

ABYC wise, and I did not check with the Canadian counterpart (which for all intents and purposes uses ABCY regulations)
My understanding is that airtight chambers integral with the hull can be used but there is a stipulation that the TWO largest chamber have to be omitted in the calculation. In case, I suspect, that should they be ruptured that the boat must still float.

 

yes from my reading air chambers do not count toward flotation. And what's more it seems that your boat must be swamped for 18 hours to pass. Man I'm pretty confident my plywood is sealed but that freaks me out a bit.

 

Unfortunately air does not count toward flotation. Thanks for the thread recommendation. My head is spinning with interior options ATM.

 

Air chambers do count toward floations but you need to allow for failure of two of the larger chambers if they are integral to the hull.