Remove flybridge, add solar

[rslifkin]

Think of a layout like my boat (pictured below in an overhead view). The top of the aft cabin is the primary outside space. My helm sits at the back edge of the salon roof, much like the picture in post 42 shows. In your case, if you did move the helm there, you could probably skip the windshields, as you have a lower helm (in my case that's the only helm). The big downside is while you gain a lower profile and more space for solar (see panels in front of my windshields), you do lose the ability to put a dinghy on deck.

 

[CharlieO.]

I like the way they look without the flybridge =

https://www.boattrader.com/boat/197...mrlbnBXrd2R6FCPpA0sZ209jxg9zvSrQaAtipEALw_wcB

Not sure I would remove my flybridge here on the east coast. Alaska? Probably.

 

[Dashash]

I like the way they look without the flybridge =

https://www.boattrader.com/boat/197...mrlbnBXrd2R6FCPpA0sZ209jxg9zvSrQaAtipEALw_wcB

Not sure I would remove my flybridge here on the east coast. Alaska? Probably.

Hey, thanks. That listing is helpful to visualize what it would look like. I like it, too.

 

[OldDan1943]

I like the way they look without the flybridge =

https://www.boattrader.com/boat/197...mrlbnBXrd2R6FCPpA0sZ209jxg9zvSrQaAtipEALw_wcB

Not sure I would remove my flybridge here on the east coast. Alaska? Probably.

That example boat looks in sad shape. It will break your heart and your bank account.

 

[hollywood8118]

I like the way they look without the flybridge =

https://www.boattrader.com/boat/197...mrlbnBXrd2R6FCPpA0sZ209jxg9zvSrQaAtipEALw_wcB

Not sure I would remove my flybridge here on the east coast. Alaska? Probably.

they look interesting, that one is worth nothing and looks destined to head to the landfill
HOLLYWOOD

 

[CharlieO.]

I wasn't posting it for someone to buy, I can smell those pictures.

I just like the lines, still would like to see it with forward raked windshield

 

[JWellington]

This is entirely unrelated to my original post, but I think I'm allowed to hi-jack my own thread - Has anyone experimented with a kite for propulsion with a tailwind?

Ive been researching them and they seem pretty good. You get some sail power without shading the solar panels , as normal sails do. So Im for all solar panels on roof, and a kite sail.

 

[Dashash]

Work has been busy, but that doesn't mean my imagination has not. I decided to try to illustrate the concept I have for my boat. Remove FB, add stabilizers, and have an outdoor lounge/social area, all while being able to scoot underneath the lowest bridges.

At the moment, my boat projects consist of removing and replacing windows and scraping varnish - so all this stuff is a ways out

 

[Dashash]

Some more ideas. The stabilization design will depend on further structural analysis and more thought about low bridge clearance necessity.

 

[Comodave]

I would think that the stabilizers and low bridge clearance would be directly opposed from each other. I am certainly not an expert on stabilizers but I think they have significant structure and are fairly tall. It may be a lot of work to disassemble them to get under a bridge, or not???

 

[OldDan1943]

THey make ‘knuckles” that allows laying the poles down. Finding them is another problem.
Time to walk the docks and ask questions.

 

[Comodave]

Like I said I am not an expert on stabilizers but most of the ones I have seen are similar to the second rendering in post #69. With the tall support structure the low bridge clearance would be gone.

 

[Bmarler]

most of what i know about stabilizers comes from fishing boats. we had mast and spreader (crosstree) the poles would nestle into when stowed. the poles had fore and aft stays as did the mast. all of that stuff was pretty tall when the poles were up. granted, stabilizer poles are shorter than trolling poles by about half, but they still add to the bridge clearance issue. i would imagine you'd need pretty close to thirty feet if you had antennas mounted up there. that's about where i'm at with my mast.
i have seen some modern ones that have hinging supports that are much shorter, especially if they're deployed. (but then the boat is wider of course)

 

[rwidman]

I think removing the flybridge to install solar panels is a bad idea. You will really reduce the value of your boat and of course, lose the flybridge for your own use.

If you have your heart set on a solar powered boat, buy one or install a hard top over your flybridge and install the solar panels on it.

 

[Dashash]

Appreciate all of the opinions. Seriously.

The flybridge is about to come off, though. Hydraulics, coax, electrical, vents, etc. are disconnected. Working on arrangements for a crane to lift off the flybridge, hopefully in the next month or so. Then I'll need to do a bit of work cleaning up the roof. I just received orders to CA and the boat is coming with, which means the flybridge would have to come off anyways for transport. Once in CA, I plan to have some form of stabilization fit.

Of course the post wouldn't be complete without more photoshopping...

 

[Marco Flamingo]

If you are willing to look at all options, look into anti-roll tanks for your stabilizer. The most effective position for them is away from the center of gravity, which is often on top of the pilot house. The further from the CG, the smaller they can be. Retrofitted on top of a pilot house, they can be ugly.

Basically, add a few inches to the height of the upper deck to contain a shallow tank half filled. The boat rolls to port and starts to snap back just as the liquid in the tank reaches the port side. That weight shift and momentum dampens (or eliminates) the roll. Nothing to deploy, switch on, repair, etc. Works at anchor, as shown in the video.

I've been researching this for my FB. I have a single bench seat that runs the full width of the FB. I have to climb over this "box" to get to the upper helm. I've been looking at a custom or DIY flexible tank (a bladder) to put inside it and test it as a stabilizer. If my FB was also an inexpensive invisible stabilizer, then I would really get some valuable usage. In your situation, it could still be covered with solar panels or even left empty.

 

[bogranjac1]

There is sitting room for five in the rear cockpit; two on top of the forward cabin, but discourage people from going atop the saloon. (Railings are low up there and exaggerated boat movements because of the higher center of gravity.) Inside, four are readily accommodated in the pilothouse and six in the saloon. I almost always remain in the pilothouse, avoiding solar rays. Rarely boat with more than four aboard, most was eight; usually just two or three including myself.

Now if everyone was as sensible as Mark,all boats would be green and yellow.

 

[Mako]

they look interesting, that one is worth nothing and looks destined to head to the landfill
HOLLYWOOD

Landfill, heck, I'd hold onto it and then when I die have them put my body in it and light it on fire. Of course the boat would have to be renamed "Valkyrie"

 

[Bob Cofer]

350w on the roof after removing the FB. We loved that boat.

 

[Dashash]

Removed flybridge. Bench being donated to marina and coming off tomorrow. Last two pics are of the sort of look I'm going for. Lots of work ahead filling holes and epoxy/fg everything smooth. Going on a deployment soon so work may slow down for a while. Tempted to give the rest of the project of fiberglassing and painting roof to the boat yard so that it's ready for solar, radar, lights, horn, ventilation, etc. when I return.

 

[HTurner]

Looks good.

 

[OldDan1943]

Dashash, I like the look.

 

[Bacchus]

I think removing the flybridge to install solar panels is a bad idea. You will really reduce the value of your boat and of course, lose the flybridge for your own use.

If you have your heart set on a solar powered boat, buy one or install a hard top over your flybridge and install the solar panels on it.

Above is only one opinion but not shared by myself.

View attachment 130176

350w on the roof after removing the FB. We loved that boat.

I have admired the transformation of Ebbtide and felt it added appeal, class and value!

Dashash... I think you are absolutely on the right track and like your thinking and eye for design. My Maibship 34HT is similar in concept sans the solar addition. I get many, many comments from admirers of the look and lines. It's too bad MS made so few of these as there are others out there searching for one to hit the market.
Can't wait to see finished photos... keep up the good work!

 

[OldDan1943]

With all that weight off, you have lowered the center of gravity which can be a good thing when taking a beam sea.

 

[Dashash]

Thank you for the kind words.

 

[Dashash]

Just another shot this evening. And I should add - boat will be shipped via truck from MD to CA in the next couple months, now that it is within height limits, courtesy of Uncle Sam. The Joint Travel Regulations allow reimbursement for the movement of mobile homes (which includes boats). In fact, I will make some money in the process. Looking at Ventura, CA for her new home.

 

[Mako]

@Dashash, coming along great! I might suggest once you're back in Cali to add a tapered eyebrow, say about 6-8" high in front then tapering back to maybe 3-4" aft. That will also add physical and windbreak protection for your solar field as well.

 

[slowgoesit]

Dashash, I'm curious how you're making money on it if the Gov't pays for the move?!? It's not a Dity move after all. Either way, good on you for figuring out a way to get your boat moved without breaking the bank!
In 21 years, I made lots of $$ in Dity moves!

 

[Dashash]

Dashash, I'm curious how you're making money on it if the Gov't pays for the move?!? It's not a Dity move after all. Either way, good on you for figuring out a way to get your boat moved without breaking the bank!
In 21 years, I made lots of $$ in Dity moves!

First of all, I've always been a fan of your boat. Beautiful.

About the boat move - yes, I originally thought there was no way I would be able to take the boat with me until I dug into the JTR a bit more. The JTR stipulates that if your permanent residence is a "mobile home" (defined in the JTR as a traditional mobile home, converted rail car, or vessel over >14' long), and you owned the mobile home before you were issued your PCS orders, you will be reimbursed to move it up to your weight allowance. My weight allowance is 14,000lb. Government is paying ~$2.51/lb these days, and after going through the DPS process, the gov't constructed cost is a hair over $35,000. I have a few quotes to ship across the country in the low 20s. I have talked to a few move counselors just to double check that I'm not missing something big. They have assured me that I will receive the $35k even if it costs me $1 to ship the boat. But the difference between $35k and whatever it costs me to move it is taxable. Either way, I will come out WAY on top. The move is classified as a PPM/DITY move, believe it or not. You can, of course, opt to have the government handle the move, but then you would miss out on move incentive $ that comes with a PPM. Also, you cannot have a separate HHG move along with your boat move.

I'll report back when it passes the auditors and I get a large bank deposit!

 

[slowgoesit]

Dashash, thanks for the comments on our boat! We really like her. Best of luck on your move, and it sounds like you have your ducks in a row.
P.S. Transportation types really hate those of us who have read and are familiar with the JTR's!