Narrow beam and flat bottom...compromises

So, thanks to Paul for posting a link to Ray Hunts skinny sailboats, I found myself down the rabbit hole. I want to get away from the out n out racing boats with fixed keels, but ballasted dagger boards will work. Looking through a selection of "stuff", I have so far got a bunch of sharpie type hulls and a "mullet skiff", which seems like a sharpie skiff, but with a high bow chine with a sharp entry. There are also the Bolger boxes, and Skillegalee who sections im currently drawing out for a possible model. One thing i noticed with some Atkin designs, the hulls are pretty similar between motor only and sail hulls, see below. We dont get much skinny water stuff outside of barge yachts and the rare Norwalk Island Sharpie, this side of the Atlantic; so, what is the accepted wisdom of the sailing characteristics?
I have read that Bolger likes the bow out of the water, and the likes of Chris Morejohn of "Hoggie" fame thinks the stem should be under. I have no experience with either.





Apart from the obvious draggy stern that could be extended for low hp, with greater bearing aft, is this particular hull type that is fine forward, have bad steering habits either under power or heeled under sail?

 

Would you have the LWL and beam of the two examples to share please?

 

The sailboat LWL is 23ft the max bottom beam is 6ft 5in and sheer beam is 7ft 10in
The power boat LWL 22ft Dont have the off-sets to hand for bottom, but the beam is 6ft 8in.
The bottom shape is virtually the same . There is an even slimmer version below....



......but the bottom chine is quite consistent having more bearing aft. Contrast that with the Bolger Skillgalee, which like some others, carries most of the maximum beam closer to midships on the bottom, and has less flare in the sides.



Most of the sailing boats that have had good manners,IME, have reasonably balanced flow. Im wondering if the narrow waterlines forward and wide aft, might make for a heavy helm when heeled, like some modern wide stern yachts......despite NOT being beamy?

 

Sharpies are a distinctly American development based upon our large Atlantic coast inland/sheltered waterways. Each distinct area (Long Island Sound, Bahamas, Chesapeake, Albemarle Sound, Florida Keys, Louisiana, Galveston Bay, etc,) developed their own take on the easy and quick to build style. Because of the shallow and generally flat waters, a very different style emerged than, say, the New England dory. They sail quite well if sailed flat, but can pound if out of their designed area due to little spring in the keel and flat floors forward. Many east coast skiffs start development from the "flattie" (i.e. 'flat iron skiff') but today typically have more spring in the forefoot and V floors forward for better seakeeping.

 

Sharpie (boat) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpie_(boat)

 

Some of the early French ply yachts had under water lines similar to "skipjack" style. Even a small amount of "V" must help.





Boats with "rocker", like Bolgers examples are looked upon more favourably. The Bristol Channel had its own version of a "dory" and some suggest this is where it originated, not an argument i want to get into, but flat and flared boats are not unknown, just more specialist and localised.

 

I really like this style of boat. I grew up on a schooner designed by Clark Mills. He was inspired by the flat narrow lines of the sharpie.

She sailed beautifully. Easy to handle and comfortable at sea.

-Will

 

Thats a beasty of a wee ship Will. Nice lines, centre-boarder?

 

Another Bolger. Class 1V OSTAR racer.



Not much more habitable than Skillygalee, and with the bottom the same size as the deck, much like Martha Jane. More load capacity, but with that ballasted fin, i do not see it being any less able than the flare sided skillygalee. Any thoughts on a comparison?

 

Hard to ignore real world knowledge from Chris Morejohn...



""The whole controversy from what the Bolger followers and other early flat bottoms disciples and my designs is the bow depth. I say from real experience that if your bow is not under water at rest it will pound too much. The bright red bottom paint is what's under water. How can everybody fuss so much about following Bolgers bows when he to my knowledge never really sailed or cruised. He was a huge influence in my design life in that I feel he was the punk designer of the time. He drew radical stuff that was not Maine Yachty. I loved this. But after sailing some of his boats and seeing their short comings I went in my own direction.
He lived on a boat at a dock. The bow you see here at sea goes up and down and through seas that in sails through. That little bit of bow submersion means nothing at sea. The 7-8" of difference between my bow and a Bolger designed bow at sea is not noticeable. But at rest at anchor a Bolger bow is unlivable period. To keep following this is very naive and you will not be happy with your boat.""

Question, are those flat aft sections any better? What is with the inflatable collars some people use under their fat wide transoms?

 

Another Morejohn design 27ft boat. I think this one had 8800lb displacement. Lots to like, but it was too heavy for "normal" towing behind a "normal car, unless completely stripped out of ballast and kit.



Only 8ft beam, but not as "skinny" given the length as some of the others.

 

Those look an awful lot like a Thunderbird.

Plans – International Thunderbird Class Association http://thunderbirdsailing.org/plans/

 

Thunderbird has a lot of chine forward out of the water, much like Black Soo, both excellent hulls. The early Herbulot boats like the Corsaire and Mousquetaire had the chines at the stem below the water line with a very shallow V......a compromise possibly for ease of planking? Later Herbulot and Harle designs like Muscadet and Armagnac had the lifted chine similar to Thunderbird.
My old Robert Tucker Escapade was very similar, like many plywood boats of that era.







and a VERY good seaboat. Some talk about "draggy" chines, but they really dug-in when going upwind.

 

No. 3/4 keel.

She was designed to operate in Florida waters. 56' LOA, 12' Beam, 5' Draft. I was 12 years old, at the helm one stormy night, on the way from Carrabelle to Cedar Key, when a huge wave rolled right over the top of us. The water came right up to my armpits and all that was visible above the water were the main and foremast ahead of me. Sunflower hardly even rolled with the wave as it passed from starboard to port.

My father stuck his head up out of the opened main hatch and asked what I'd done, because all that water had just dumped right behind him sitting at the chart table. We got a Bimini after that.

-Will

 

That sounds deep even for those parts, even if not for a boat that length. I guess those Florida sharpies were operating in even more skinny water. Quite something to see your boat temporarily disappear under water, those are scenes that seem burned into memory.