Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-04-2014, 03:34 PM   #61
Guru
 
healhustler's Avatar
 
City: Longboat Key, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bucky
Vessel Model: Krogen Manatee 36 North Sea
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billylll View Post
If I could easily do it I would remove the upper helm on my Gulfstar. I may end up doing it once I get the boat back to my home marina in NJ. To me it's wasted space I could use for additional solar panels and antennas. It's one less set of gauges, throttle and engine cables and steering controls to deal with. It would also lower my overall height possibly lowering my CG. I see practically no reason to use the upper helm given the view and comforts I will have at the lower helm.
Bill
Hmmm. I got to wondering what the Gulfstar 36 would look like with no FB. It's already a pretty nice looking boat, maybe one of the lesser obtrusive FB applications, but she looks nice with a full rack of solar panels. If you amputated the FB, maybe Eric might be interested.

__________________
Advertisement

__________________
Larry

"I'd rather be happy than dignified".
healhustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 04:27 PM   #62
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,183
And back to the OP, I would again suggest identifying your personal needs and preferences through time looking at boats, being on them, chartering them. Make a requirements list based on deliverables, that is what you want the boat to do for you. No labels, no brands. Then determine those boats that most nearly match your desires.

Every boat is a compromise. We'd like to be able to cross oceans at 50 knots with a perfectly smooth ride, have fuel usage of under 0.5 gallons per nm., have systems that never break, have the space of a 200 meter yacht and the handling of a 30' boat, with a draft of less than 3' and several decks but collapsible when needing to clear a 15' bridge. Oh and new and all for under $50,000.

Identifying those things that are most important to you is the struggle. We created both wish lists and "can't live without" lists. Then the selection process included a lot of elimination of boats. We ended up with a huge number removed from consideration, a small number still under possible consideration and only 3 or so that truly had us liking them for our purpose.
__________________

BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 04:56 PM   #63
Guru
 
City: Tuckerton, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: WIRELESS ONE
Vessel Model: 36 Gulstar MarkII
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by healhustler View Post
Hmmm. I got to wondering what the Gulfstar 36 would look like with no FB. It's already a pretty nice looking boat, maybe one of the lesser obtrusive FB applications, but she looks nice with a full rack of solar panels. If you amputated the FB, maybe Eric might be interested.

That's exactly how I envisioned the look of a GS 36 Mark II Trawler without the upper deck. Although my aft cabin goes all the way back there is no cockpit that might be a Mark I? Is this a photo-shop or a real converted Gulfstar?
Perfection...
To dream...
Bill
Billylll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 05:16 PM   #64
Senior Member
 
Lollygag's Avatar
 
City: Valley Springs
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Lollygag
Vessel Model: 1979 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 259
We prefer the flybridge to the lower helm. It is a little more rocky than below but that is usually just a few moments when crossing a current or wake. That's because we are in the delta
















We prefer the flybridge to the lower helm. It's a little more "rocky" than the lower helm but that is usually when hitting a wake or crossing a current. And that's because we are in the delta. When we finish all we have to do and sail under the gate I expect to A: have stabilizers and B: spend a lot more time in the saloon. The one thing I always lusted after in my sailboat days was a pilothouse. A dry, warm pilothouse!
Lollygag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 05:17 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
Lollygag's Avatar
 
City: Valley Springs
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Lollygag
Vessel Model: 1979 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 259
oops

I have no idea how I screwed up that reply.
Lollygag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 05:21 PM   #66
Guru
 
City: Tuckerton, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: WIRELESS ONE
Vessel Model: 36 Gulstar MarkII
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
I got the message. In NJ we get eaten alive by Green heads and flies. The nice days are full of nasty bugs generally...
I think the GS would be more stable without the flybridge weight.
Bill
Billylll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 06:14 PM   #67
Guru
 
djmarchand's Avatar
 
City: East Greenwich, RI
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bella
Vessel Model: Mainship Pilot 34
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,883
Hmm! There have been 65 posts, ostensibly responding to the original poster and we haven't seen a single feedback response from him. Maybe we bored him to death.

David
djmarchand is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 06:24 PM   #68
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmarchand View Post
Hmm! There have been 65 posts, ostensibly responding to the original poster and we haven't seen a single feedback response from him. Maybe we bored him to death.

David
Or just confused him to death...

Sounds like he had his heart set on a Grand Banks....

Here are his words...."I am leaning towards the Grand Banks since inter-coastal cruising is the type I will do probably do most, and the ocean crossing capabilities of the Krogen and Norhavn are not needed. I'm just wondering why the vast majority of boats I see in magazines and on the Internet that are up in Alaska or doing the Big U are of the Krogen/Norhavn style. Those are also cruises I would like to consider."

We have great advice that many boats are certainly capable of doing the big "U" from New England to Alaska...and they don't have to be passagemakers...and yet some insist that their ideas of passagemakers are the most reasonable advice.

There's even good advice about stabilization and still some insist that it only really works on some hull forms well.

psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 06:34 PM   #69
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,265
A flying bridge is fine for watching fireworks. Good thing Ray/Giggitoni has one.

__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 06:36 PM   #70
TF Site Team
 
Bay Pelican's Avatar
 
City: Chicago, IL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bay Pelican
Vessel Model: Krogen 42
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwkiwi View Post
Over the past year of cruising full time we have used our fly bridge less than 1/2 dozen times, the pilothouse as others have mentioned is awesome and with a centrally positioned helm you have great access to anything you need.
Same here, in 15 years I have used the flying bridge three times while cruising. I do use it almost all the time when docking as I then have 360 degree visibility. Pilot house is just too comfortable, well equipped and centrally located to use the flying bridge underway.
__________________
Marty
Bay Pelican is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2014, 11:05 PM   #71
Guru
 
healhustler's Avatar
 
City: Longboat Key, FL
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Bucky
Vessel Model: Krogen Manatee 36 North Sea
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billylll View Post
That's exactly how I envisioned the look of a GS 36 Mark II Trawler without the upper deck. Although my aft cabin goes all the way back there is no cockpit that might be a Mark I? Is this a photo-shop or a real converted Gulfstar?
Perfection...
To dream...
Bill
Naw. It's a photoshop, but it looks good anyway.
__________________
Larry

"I'd rather be happy than dignified".
healhustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 07:55 AM   #72
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billylll View Post
I know I'm talking about a small time vessel what can I expect with my 36 FD 1976 Gulfstar Mark II in moderate to light seas?
Thanks in advance...
Bill

Just estimating, but...

I'd say comfortable heading into seas, OK in following seas, rolly in beam seas. But I'd pretty much guess that about any unstabilized boat, no matter the hull shape. or sea state. Matters of degree, maybe...

You'd probably experience the rolly part less from the lower helm.

-Chris
__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 09:29 AM   #73
Guru
 
City: gulf coast
Country: pinellas
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,199
My friends with two helms here in FL use the upper when weather is good to enjoy it, when weather is bad to see better and when in ICW or docking to also see better. They rarely use the lower.


Years ago I chartered a GB42 and found I used the lower when offshore but the upper everywhere else.
bayview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 11:32 AM   #74
Guru
 
City: Tuckerton, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: WIRELESS ONE
Vessel Model: 36 Gulstar MarkII
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
I don't need to be sold on the merits of an upper helm. I don't want one. What I'm asking would there be less roll due to having less weight and windage by removing the upper fiberglass?
What is the general consensus on the looks of the boat without the upper helm? I confirmed the picture photo shopped is a Mark I not a Mark II. The Mark II has no cockpit area only a full width and length aft cabin.

Bill
Billylll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 11:51 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
Lollygag's Avatar
 
City: Valley Springs
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Lollygag
Vessel Model: 1979 42' CHB Europa
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 259
Yes, you would have less windage and weight aloft. Enough to make a significant difference is the question. The flybridge is generally a thin fiberglass enclosure that doesn't weigh very much and the windage works both ways. Personally, I think trawlers look good with or without the flybridge.
Lollygag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 11:51 AM   #76
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 13,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billylll View Post
What I'm asking would there be less roll due to having less weight and windage by removing the upper fiberglass?
Bill
Very little effect. I've seen comparisons of some boats both ways. There's a lot less weight to the extra glass than you might think at first on a boat like the Gulfstar. If they were initially designed to handle the upper glass and to be balanced with it, then removing the superstructure isn't going to have a lot of impact. A very little in windage and virtually none in rolling, handling or performance. Note that this doesn't work the other way around because adding one to a boat not designed with one can have all sorts of effect.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 11:57 AM   #77
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,932
Losing the flybridge will affect windage for sure (how much really is determined by windspeeds and what you would normally operate in)...

As far as roll...while it might make it less...again how much is the question as it may only reduce the actual roll a few degrees but may reduce the roll period to the point where it's undesirable.

Plain old roll is not an absolute when it comes to seaworthiness....my boat is a disaster waiting to happen due to windows, cabin structural integrity and downflooding...more or less roll is pretty much meaningless unless she would turn turtle in around 6 footers...much betond that and I think I'll have other issues.
psneeld is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 12:32 PM   #78
Guru
 
City: gulf coast
Country: pinellas
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,199
yes less weight up top especially when you add people will make for different roll properties. Importantly you will experience roll less down below than you would up top.
bayview is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 01:33 PM   #79
Guru
 
City: Tuckerton, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: WIRELESS ONE
Vessel Model: 36 Gulstar MarkII
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
I guess the consensus is if nobody is up top there will be less roll, that makes sense, otherwise there should be very little difference. I like the looks without the bridge but that's just me...
Bill
Billylll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2014, 02:25 PM   #80
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Or just confused him to death...

Sounds like he had his heart set on a Grand Banks....

Here are his wordsI'm just wondering why the vast majority of boats I see in magazines and on the Internet that are up in Alaska or doing the Big U are of the Krogen/Norhavn style. Those are also cruises I would like to consider."

This is the root of this discussion.

I would like to point out that the OP's original comment about the boats in Alaska being FD is absolutely incorrect! Its not the OP that was incorrect, its the information sources he has available that are incorrect.

I am in Alaska and have boated here for a decade and a half now. I'm also in the northern ice free part of Alaska and am home based out of Seward Alaska.

The VAST majority of 30-75' power boats up here are represent the cross section of what I consider TF members. There is a mix of Trawler, yacht and sport fish type boats.

There is ONE actual round chine FD recreational power boat. Its a Nordhavn 46, that the owner just bought last year for use during his pending retirement.

The problem is that if you read Passagemaker, and I do, you can be led to the conclusion that you need a Nordhavn or other FD boat to explore here. Dont get me wrong I love Nordhavns. I really do. A 52 Nordhavn pulled into port last week and almost everybody on the dock drooled.

Then we got back in our TT's, and our Tollys, and our Bayliners and we weno out in the Gulf of Alaska and went fishing.

The same can probably be said for probably every other place known for its big seas. Places like the California coat for example. If you read the internet or magazines you'll come to the conclusion that you need a FD boat. If you go to the local harbors in the area I BET you'll find the same cross sections of TT's, and Tollycrafts, and Bayliners you see here representing the powerboat fleet.
__________________

__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012