Great Harbor Trawlers still in business?

Can you please provide us with more pictures.....

Joe Pica said:

Let's see.... conjecture and opinion based on no formal NA or PE education without factual data or actual experience cruising in the hull in question trumps all?

Click to expand...

Joe: I'm sure the N37 is a very fine boat and I would jump at the chance to take one for a spin, but in marketing, "perception is reality" and since you wrote of your extensive experience in boats, let me say that I made my fortune in marketing! From a "perception" point of view (and nothing else!) the boat appears to be top heavy! It may not be true but the perception is there and that is what you see TFers referring to. Quite honestly, I felt the same way about the Nordhavn 55 when it first came out. (And I still do!)

Joe Pica said:

I am stunned to realize that all my years of personal boating experience in many different hull forms (6yrs in a GH N-37) both power a sail is meaningless compared to forum opines.
Cheers

Joe
"Carolyn Ann" GH N-37

Click to expand...

Well, at least for my part, yours is the very first real cruising testimony I've read from anyone with a Great Harbour of any kind, and I'm so happy to read it. I know someone with an N-47 now and I can't wait to speak to him about it, especially since he also has decades of solid general experience of boats. I applaud your clearing-up of this conjecture and opinion without basis, and please tell us more.

OMG ... I just saw the pics of the GH 37 out of the water.

I have made a terrible fool of myself!

I'll never trust my memory again. I thought the GH had vertical sides and a flat bottom all the way to the stem. So most of what I said about the seaworthyness is total bunk. I was wondering how a NA could produce a hull so crude. Brain was engaged but not fully.

SO MY HUMBLE AND MOST SINCERE APOLOGY TO ALL. Especially the designer and those that own one. And for the record if the visibility fwd was acceptable I would like very much to own the GH37.

I have to say that I'm warming up to the 37 footer with the flybridge.

For you guys looking for some more photos of Great Harbor boats,...bottoms and insides, have another look at the ones I posted over on this other forum.
Brian

brian eiland said:

I first saw these Great Harbor trawlers down in Green Cove Springs myself a couple of years ago. Two of them were out of the water and I took a bunch of photos, but I don't have them with me over in Thailand at the moment.

Anyone have some photos of the bottoms of these vessels?

I climbed aboard one of them, It was quite impressive.

Ah ha,...I just found my own photos I took that day in Fla...posted over here:
YachtForums.Com - View Single Post - New to Yachting; 13 Million to spend -

.....more pics on postings #80, 81,82,83,84 on that forum
New to Yachting; 13 Million to spend - - Page 6 - YachtForums.Com


Expensive boats if I remember correctly !!

Click to expand...

I've been hot for a GH ever since I boarded the group in Green Cove Springs. Just too big of a stretch for me. I still keep track on 'em, though. The whole bunch would make great live-aboards, but the N-37 with a fly-bridge is a better fit for us if we did decide to live aboard or cruise full time. A very respectful stand-up apology from the hull-wise Manyboats makes me feel all the better about the boat in general.

One comparison I can make with my own boat vs. the N-47 that recently shared the same pier with me is that it reacted about the same to wakes rolling into the marina from the active St. Lucie river. Another item of interest is that it reacted much less to the river's current when backing out. My full keel grabs the current and I have to really accelerate out of the marina to stay away from the sailboats at the end of the pier. The GH 47 was easily more than twice my weight and probably responded less because of it, but the smaller rudders might have been a contributing factor as well. When backing out in the same current about the same time, nothing really happened to the GH while mine was quickly whipped into the 2 knot down river. Sorry I don't have an example of windage to compare.

Joe,
Thank you for jumping into this quagmire. I have a lot less miles under my Great Harbour 47 than you have enjoyed under your keel but we will soon be in your wake.
cheers,

Joe Pica said:

Let's see.... conjecture and opinion based on no formal NA or PE education without factual data or actual experience cruising in the hull in question trumps all? I guess if you shout loud enough and often enough someone may believe you know what you are talking about regardless of facts. I doubt many of these self proclaimed pundits of naval architecture have even seen a Great Harbour hull out of the water let alone sea trialed one prior to condemning it's sea keeping ability. I will include some pictures to clear up some of the "conjectures". The GH hull is a very unique sophisticated, and complex design, not just a simple flat bottomed boat. I guess the "Webb Institute MIT NA/PE who designed the hull, the GH owners who have cruised 1000s of miles off shore, inshore, the Great Lakes, Canadian Maritimes, North Atlantic and the South Pacific are fantasizing how comfortable and capable their boats have seemed in all their travels.
I am stunned to realize that all my years of personal boating experience in many different hull forms (6yrs in a GH N-37) both power a sail is meaningless compared to forum opines.
I guess I need to stay in a Holiday Express.

Cheers

Joe
"Carolyn Ann" GH N-37

Click to expand...

Hi Joe,
Thanks for joining the discussion. Some real world experience with the GH's certainly is appreciated.
My main concern with the GH boats was the possibility of the Marketing Dept having overuled the Techical Design Dept. (rather than doubting the knowledge of a persons involved in the technical design)

There is often competing pressures from different departments in almost every industry to some extent, I expect the boating industry as well. Sometimes the technical side loses out, for the sake of something which will generate more sales. Information from people such as yourself could help us all understand the hull truth.

Can you expand a bit on the N-37 handling characteristics in various types of seas? What does she excel at? How does she handle a rough beam sea? or a big head sea? or any other comments on sea keeping ability.

This would be a big help to people such as me who are far from being experts at hull design; even with the pictures. (especially when it deviates from the traditional form).

BTW - I'd trade you boats in a blink of an eye regardless of your answer

Joe Pica,
I'm sure glad you posted the pics of the GH before I buried myself any deeper. I'm a very visual person and trust my visual recollections .. To a fault obviously. I'm very sorry about my bad mouth re the GH hull.

I think AusCan's request is a reasonable one and am hoping to hear stimulating and enlightening comments from the skipper of the hull in question. It is in question because of it's different appearance as is everything that looks other than the norm. You don't need to be a NA or have other "credentials" to see the GH is different. Everything that looks different is questioned. There's no end to the number of things different from the norm or traditional that didn't measure up in the long run. If the GH is of sound design it could have been built 50 years ago ... But for probably many reasons it wasn't. The most significant one being that ther'e were not enough trawlers to establish a recognizable market. But steel yachts are nothing new. So if the GH is indeed something new it is not that it is steel.

So what's new?
Extreme shape and proportions I'd say. Never have I seen such a wide flat bottom on a yacht if this size before. Show me another yacht that has such a total lack of flair above the chines. Or one of this size w small twin engines. There may even be a lack of cultural flair as well. A commercial appearance to be sure but that probably helps sell the boats as trawlers. There's almost a total lack of compound curves on the GH. Harley Earl was certainly not in the styling department. But it has a serious open for business can do anything masculine tough job look about her and things masculine are very vogue right now. Big PU trucks are leading the sales charts so says Yahoo. So the GH has appeal to those wanting to be masculine or having some rough edges. It has appeal to me. Almost entirely because she's unusual. The only boat I designed was even more unusual that the GH. And I've had anchors that wouldn't be recognizable as anchors to even some boaters.

But as to seaworthiness the GH is probably about average for a boat of this size and most this size will of course be considerably longer. Long narrow boats have a tremendous advantage re seaworthiness because their directional stability is far better that short and wide. Although directional stability is strongly related to a boats ability to stay upright beam and basic stability may frequently trump directional stability. The GH may have enough stability to overcome most all broaching but then ther'e is the tripping chine threat. That threat rarely comes to pass however w a high CG it is probably much more real. But the spaciousness and rock solid stability would be wonderful for many.

And if my boating budget and needs were inline w the GH I'd be right ther'e looking.

I've started looking closely at these boats. They seem to have the space and economy in a not huge boat.

It seems though there's not many on the market for sale, so my frugalness probably couldn't handle the price or deal that could be had on one.

I think when you go aboard one you'll find it a"huge boat".

stability and unusual feature of the GH Hull

I am not sure I understand the design genesis enough to address the various unusual features mentioned about the GH Hull. I can only speak to my experiences with regard to these features as the key to my choosing a GH N-37. GH's are fiberglass hulls solid from the rub rail down and cored above mostly with nidacore a honeycomb like coring with lot's of trapped air which effectively keeps the boat from sinking (it would be flooded but not sink)
The hull behaves similar to a cat without the snap roll and sensitivity to being heavily ladened. This is due in part because of the 16' beam at the wide part and a 37' waterline length our last hoist weight was 46,000lbs. This width and hard chines make the boat very stiff (barely budging when stepping onto the gunnel) and it's very low center of gravity (floor of galley due to the majority of weight being on the bottom of the boat) help limit the roll motion...this is really a question for Lou Codega the NA who explains the impact of hull design sympathetic roll frequency to sea size on a beam sea. I can only address that the most roll I 've experienced is in 3' short seas and I've been in steep 6-8's. Beyond the roll experienced in 3' beam seas, the boat does not roll further and seems to platform the waves. This boat does not have a tendency to "chine trip"... if I understand the implication and the rounded stern coming up to allow room for the props and rudders make broaching improbable as following seas tend to roll under lifting the boat. A good stability example is when waked in a crowded anchorage. We roll the least (like a cat) and settle the fastest while other traditional trawlers roll like a metronome/pendulum rocking thru a much greater arc and taking many more cycles to final settle.
This is not a technical answer but experiential. I'm sure Ken Fickett and Lou Codega(both have online addresses) could explain this much better and more thoroughly using figures and calculation not subject observations.

Aside from unparalleled room in a 37' boat, it is elegantly succinct. Wide walk around decks lined with high 1/5/8" rails with gated egress at 3 different levels port and strb. This a huge convenience when docking at different types/heights of docks/slips without being an acrobat.
I like the keel/scag protected props with huge effective rudders, sea chest and stand-up engine with open access to all systems. Shallow 3' draft for short scope(I have a very stout bow towing eye at the waterline for my snubber) and thus limited swing area in reversing winds a currents, huge fiberglass tanks, 500 gals fuel, 300 gal water, 100+gals holding tank. The very economical twins engines(total of 108 hp @54hp burn 2 gal hrs. at 7knts in static conditions moving the boat along fine as a displacement hull. The twins offer real get home security. I have used this one engine get home 3 times, all non fuel/PM related. The boat handles very well on just one engine even docking. The wide set props and big rudders permit moving/slipping the boat sideways to a lock wall or a dock space. Another N-37 just arrived today in St Louis after going up the middle Mississippi River from Cairo against a 4 mph current heading to Minneapolis...lot's of patience .

A boat is simply a tool to meet a purpose which defines the tool(boat). this N-37 is the best solution for my purpose (intended cruising areas). It was originally designed as an Bahama Islands and Caribbean cruiser and that is on my agenda after finishing down east cruise.

Hopefully I have not confused anyone and not stepped on Lou or Ken's toes with my meager attempt to answer these questions.

Joe
"Carolyn Ann"
GH N-37
our blog with pictures during build is attached and at bottom of blog posts is the link to picasa picture albums with enough pictures to cure insomnia and or constipation!
http://carolynann-n37.blogspot.com/

Great Harbour

For a little clarity there are four models of Great Harbour Trawlers that have been built. The GH37 and N37, and the GH47 and N47. Both 37s share the same hull as do the two 47s. The difference between the “N” and the “GH” in both cases is the design above the rubrail. The Ns are VERY low profile boats and it would be hard to imagine anybody considering them as “top heavy”. The N37 will clear under an 11' bridge and the 47 will clear under a 12' bridge if neither has a fly bridge. The fly bridge adds about three feet to both. The 47 is one foot taller to elevate the helmsman and improve his visibility because of the longer foredeck. The GH models have considerably more interior room with full width saloons (wide body) and a raised pilot house with Portuguese Bridge. The helmsman of a GH is standing about seven feet higher then the helmsman of an “N”. The GH gives you the perception of less stability because you do actually experience more movement by being further above the axis of rotation of the hull. Both the N and the GH will experience VERY similar amounts of roll in the same conditions as has been born out by instrumented boats in the same conditions. The additional weight aloft of a GH is minimized greatly by the very high-tech vacuum bagged, Nida cored materials that are used above the rub rail. If I were cruising the Great Loop or coastal cruising, with a Bahamas trip now and then, a GH would be fine. Once you get beyond the capability of forecasting weather conditions with accuracy I would prefer an N, mostly because of my ability to drive from a lower position with less movement.

As far as “flat bottoms” I hope that has been laid to rest. There is very little difference between the hulls of these boats and the modern offshore workboats found around the world. Ken Fickett

But steel yachts are nothing new. So if the GH is indeed something new it is not that it is steel.

By the way Eric, I may misunderstand your wording but the Great Harbour Trawlers are all fiberglass not steel. If I got you wrong I apologize. Ken Fickett

Rockbottom said:

But steel yachts are nothing new. So if the GH is indeed something new it is not that it is steel.

By the way Eric, I may misunderstand your wording but the Great Harbour Trawlers are all fiberglass not steel. If I got you wrong I apologize. Ken Fickett

Click to expand...

Are you sure they are steel???? Just by looking at pictures of one you should be able to tell...too many straight surfaces and sharp angles to be glass...no way...they are steel.....

These boats are really heavy. Where does all the weight come from?

Cargo??

I am the guy that owns the company that builds them. Trust me they are glass.

Remember that typically when a designer or builder talks about displacement that is the weight at the designed water line NOT what the boat weighs out of the factory. The displacement includes fuel, water, food, gear and all the other assorted stuff that comes aboard. In the case of RTF it includes his women, some are heavier than others!

Rockbottom said:

I am the guy that owns the company that builds them. Trust me they are glass.

Remember that typically when a designer or builder talks about displacement that is the weight at the designed water line NOT what the boat weighs out of the factory. The displacement includes fuel, water, food, gear and all the other assorted stuff that comes aboard. In the case of RTF it includes his women, some are heavier than others!

Click to expand...

Do you have a N37 currently in Green Cove Springs that the Admiral and me can take a look at?

The 'N' is a flybridge?

Really glad Joe Pica and Ken Fickett have joined this discussion. Obviously there is a great deal of interest in these boats - and for good reason given the way most people use their boats. Now that interest can be met with an experienced owner and the builder!

Dumfounded again. Plastic???

From the shape or shapes I assumed steel.

I need to click on some of these links and sites and see what other shocks I can experience.

On flat panels that lack stiffness frequently composites or/and sub frames are required for strength. Could the GH be a fiberglassed plywood boat? Or liberally laced w little bulsa blocks? Or FG angles and/or channels? Would metal reinforcement stay adhered to FG panels under hard usage?

Things to ponder

Unfortunately I've gained a lot of weight...but oh, I was not in the boat when it was hoisted for an inspection short haul. It was very low on fuel and water and still showed 43,000+ lbs. on the hoist gauge. These are very stout built fiberglass boats, all glass below the rub rail and cored above. I wrote a long response to the questions posed about the design features and effect but it somehow disappeared into the ether. Perhaps I choked the list. Some of my posts were overly sarcastic so I hope no one was insulted and sincerely apologize if anyone was.
Lou Codega is the best to explain why the GH hull design is so stable. Something to do with hull sympathetic roll frequency to beam sea wave height of around 3'. Hopefully he or Ken will do a better job than I. I can only relate from my experiences in different beam seas. Beyond 3' the boat does not roll anymore than at 3' seemingly platforming wave. I observed this in 6-7' on the Chesapeake when turning due west(90 degrees to the 35 knt winds) to enter Thimble shoals to Norfolk. No drama, just the same as I would experience at 3'. This lateral stability is somewhat like a cat without the snap roll. This stability is best observed in an anchorage when some knucklehead wakes the anchorage. We roll much less then the other similar sized traditional round/soft chined boats which seem to oscillate like pendulums/metronomes laying much further over and continuing to roll much longer then we do. We seem to take one or two shallow rolls then settle. Head seas are head seas that can cause the boat to pitch as would any other displacement hulled boat depending on wave frequency and shape. Broaching from following seas seems moderated by the up sloped rounded stern(my unscientific assessment) that provides clearance for the keel/scag protected props and rudders. Following seas just seem to flow under and around the stern so broaching has never been a threat.

I will attach the link to our blog which has a link to our picasa albums back to when the boat was being built. There are enough photos to cure insomnia and constipation

Cheers Joe

Journeys of the Carolyn Ann

Mahogany with rubber rivets...

Rockbottom said:

I am the guy that owns the company that builds them. Trust me they are glass.

Remember that typically when a designer or builder talks about displacement that is the weight at the designed water line NOT what the boat weighs out of the factory. The displacement includes fuel, water, food, gear and all the other assorted stuff that comes aboard. In the case of RTF it includes his women, some are heavier than others!

Click to expand...

Know Capt. Trey Rhyne (Over and Under Charters)? We know each other a bit ....

Have discussed diesel powering the smallish Mirage center console a few years back after he just got it.

Been following the line for years....

Nice when I saw the trawlers.

Properly designed and laid up composite panels can be quite still....the aviation world uses them quite a bit....and are very popular in the multi world.

Sure they are heavy but on a trawler it's less important....certainly will rival steel at some point and be lighter...just may not have all the characteristics...good and bad.

Eric / Manyboats,

I think I have drilled holes in almost every surface available in my boat. I have not found any balsa blocks nor any plywood on the hull. One feature we do enjoy is the v-groove fiberglass paneling that is made in the Mirage factory. I recently drilled in my pilot house roof to install a few antennas - between the rigid fiberglass surfaces, is a honeycomb that adds rigidity without the weight.
We made some scheduling decisions early in our ownership. Alligator River in 35knt winds put up a very interesting 6'+ seas. The high bow of the GH47 stuffed into some of the waves and threw water over the pilot house. We never felt uncomfortable in the boat and our only concern was if the Alligator River Bridge would close on us.
The GH47 has more tankage than the N37 but my engine room is not standup.
Calm Seas,
Henry

HenryD said:

... The high bow of the GH47 stuffed into some of the waves and threw water over the pilot house. ...

Click to expand...

Haven't we all been there?

Great Harbour Design

If I don't bore everyone I will explain a bit more about the “uniqueness” of the Great Harbour Trawlers. The shape which is often mistaken for steel came about as a result of the simple desire of a relatively small company to develop a significant line of live aboard boats. Had we chosen to build a much more complex shape with lots of compound curves it would have been beyond our reach financially. Simple curves are cheap to tool and a guy like Lou Codega can finesse those shapes to work as well as any compound shape. I would say that we saved at least a couple million dollars in tooling over the span of the four boats, not chump change! Additionally the 47 was basically designed at the same time as the 37. The original tooling was simply stretched at the appropriate points by 10 feet. It was not added to the transom but instead in a very particular curve in the hull that makes it work.


We have extensive experience in high performance sailboats, sportfishing boats and high performance, all composite aircraft. We understand the engineering of structures very well. We also recognize that design can be very polarizing and to make things worse I grew up sweeping chips out of wooden commercial fishing boats in the 50's. Those guys were all about function over looks and it has always been hard for me to shake that attitude. While looking at our (Mirage Manufacturing) 40 plus years of product we built, there are somethings that nearly everybody says are really great looking, others like the Great Harbours might have to grow on you! Best regards to all, Ken Fickett

I appreciate Joe's earthy description of the boats handling. It's so difficult to get and give objective testimony when it's one's own boat and often one's pride and joy. Like others here on this thread, I get more from such descriptions than I do from math, even being an engineer. Ken's comments sure clear up a lot of "whys" that have buzzed around in my head since I first saw my first GH 37 years ago. I was looking at Hemisphere Dancer, an older GH 37 but I was a bit worried about its twin 38HP diesels vs. the 54s. It had all the live-aboard amenities anyone could want It's engine space was the still roomy, but only half-height ER available in the GH vs. the full height ER I fell in love with on the N-series. It's a heck of a thing to reject a good boat over an engine space, but with the cost of these boats, I'd have to have an "N". I've spent enough time in tight spaces....I deserve my stand-up engine room and my Admiral agrees.