I'm considering removing my flybridge and restyling the boat as a downeast sedan albeit with an extended overhang. I'll be able to add roof hatches in the salon. I'll have a huge amount of space up top for toys. I'll be lowering the overall weight of the boat and lowering the center of gravity. I'll be elimating all the extra nav equipment, etc. What do you think?
One thing to consider is what this might do to the value of the boat and the ability to sell the boat (if you care about that). If your only interest is in your ownership of the boat and how you use it and you have no concern for what anyone else or potential buyers downstream might care, then there will be no consequence to you in making the change. And if and when you do sell it, there's always the possibility of a buyer coming along who likes what you've done.
Flying bridges are popular--- there's a reason so many boats have them.* Even the ubiquitous Nordic Tug now has a flying bridge option for its larger models and from what I've seen they seem to be popular.* The popularity of flying bridges will depend somewhat on where the boat is, too.* In the PNW with its 24-7-365 rain, flying bridges often tend to be enclosed and, if possible, heated.* Ours is not, which is not why we don't use it, but it would be a major drawback if we wanted to.* In warmer climates, I expect flying bridges are much more popular as they offer a cooler place from which to run the boat.
On some boat brands, the presence or absence of a flying bridge is a major part of the boat's character and appeal.** We don't use the flying bridge on our GB at all as far as running the boat is concerned, but removing it permanently would have a very negative effect on the value of the boat and the ability to sell it. Buyers of GBs want to buy a GB, not something that "used to be" a GB.* And GBs from outset have had a flying bridge.* It's an integral part of what makes a GB a GB.* So major modifications like removing the flying bridge are not viewed as good things to do. Plus it would entail a huge amount of work, not so much in its removal--- it's designed to be taken off for truck transportation---- but in reworking the upper deck and the boat's systems once it was gone.
I'm not familiar with the brand of boat you have, it's value, or how a major modification like the one you propose would affect potential buyers. From an aesthetic point of view, based only on your two photos, it seems to me that removing the flying bridge would not damage the look of the boat, and might even enhance it. How this would improve your usability of the boat is something only you can determine.
-- Edited by Marin on Wednesday 23rd of June 2010 11:49:41 PM
Yea Walt * * ..... like yours.As soon as I made my post I knew somebody would hammer the value point soon.
It's valid as can be but but the equation changes significantly from boat to boat.
The GBs look very good w the FB. Nordic Tugs do not. I don't know how much this has to do w product identity but it could be a lot. In my formative years I was steeped in art as my mother was an art teacher and my father leaned that way. The old saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is largely false. The elements of art (as in line, form, visual mass, texture, color relationships ect) are valid and a known if not sometimes vague discipline. When Trojan put round ports next to traditional windows shaped very differently I'd call it bad design from a visual standpoint. When designers put FBs on small boats the buyers are designing the boat, and that's good * * *.. for sales but almost always for bad function design. SO THERE'S THE ART PART, THE FUNCTION PART AND THE ECONOMICS PART OF THE FB QUESTION. The personal part should not be overlooked either. Walt's boat would look like marinetraders boat w a FB but I think in all respects Nordic Tugs look better w/o the FB. As a boat all boats would benefit from the lack of the FB. But some boats need them to serve the function of the vessel for a specific job such as a seine boat or perhaps a yacht. Yachts are designed for fun and fly bridges are for fun and that justifies many or even most FBs. So in my opinion FBs are bad but most people like them because they are fun and some like them because they think they look nice and some do look nice * * ..like the GBs. I think my Willard looks so stupid w a FB I wouldn't have one * *..but as a piece of sculpture the Willard FB is fine. It just looks so stupid from a boat standpoint and thats the personal element but then there's the round bottom and small boat functional part * * *.. stupid again but I think most Willard owners like the looks of them. To be effectively analytical i think Daddyo needs to balance all the elements of this question and proceed to a well calculated decision or just wack it off * * * ... whatever works for him * .. now or later.
nomadwilly wrote:The GBs look very good w the FB. Nordic Tugs do not... . The old saying that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is largely false... The elements of art (as in line, form, visual mass, texture, color relationships ect) are valid... some boats need them to serve the function of the vessel for a specific job such as a seine boat .....
I agree with Eric's points, especially that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder is largely false." From an art, design, form and function point of view, most fly bridges look rediculous sitting on top of a beautifully designed boat. Note: I said most...not all. Sport fishers have a need for flybridge enclosers, namely for spotting fish and the captain's ability to survey the anglers. And I agree, the GBs
and few more look good. Most do not. I'll take a well designed pilot house boat with no canvas or isinglass over just about any other design I can think of.
(I'm standing by for the "slings and arrows.")
Note how nice the boat without the bimini looks compared to the one with the bimini and isinglass. Since most skippers like the flybridge in good weather, why have any bimini or isinglass at all?
-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Thursday 24th of June 2010 12:14:24 PM
-- Edited by SeaHorse II on Thursday 24th of June 2010 12:16:27 PM
I agree that, at least from my perspective, a well-designed pilothouse boat like a Fleming is the "perfect" recreational boat design in terms of aesthetics.
The reasons I believe that boats like the GB look "right" with a flying bridge is that their lines are derived from those of a working fishboat. And many of these have a flying bridge for better visibiilty during fishing operations.
A very un-aesthetic trend in commercial fishboats, although it makes the boats more user-friendly in bad weather, is the construction of a full, standing head-room enclosure in place of the open flying bridge. Sometimes this can look okay if it was part of the boat's original design. But there are a lot of add-ons around, where the boat's original open bridge has been enclosed by what looks like a home-made design. Again, functionally beneficial but not very good looking.
Walt,I agree but would look better if the FB had the last 2-3' cut off. Even trees get smaller as they ascend.
The GB looks good w it's FB mostly because it's not way to high and the creases in the FB marry well w the tri-windows on the front of the bridge. If the two creases weren't there *and the front of the FB was curved instead of 3 flat planes it wouldn't look so good.
The look that flies w the Nordic Tugs is their sorta commercial look * *..hence "Tug". They are clearly a yacht but w a commercial flare.
About the enclosed seine boat FBs * * *.. Form following function * .. as in function waaaay ahead of form as beauty. Sorry Marin I don't see any lines or other visual features of GBs that relate to commercial boats. They look like a proud GB trawler yacht * *..that's it.
Very clever. Wish I could do that. I'll learn next winter. Got a new 27" i-mac this spring and I'll bet it can do stuff like that.
The picture exposes a very bad visual flaw in the sans FB plan. The cabin roof looks waaay to large and visually heavy. Cap the edges w dark stained teak or paint them a dark color. Replace those slab like vertical supports w more SS tubes. Make them vertical to marry w the windows. Install a nice oval shaped teak rail about 18"-2' above the cap rail. Take those 2 fwd ports out and reinstall them horizontal w the horizon like the one furthest aft. now the cabin roof still looks like a huge heavy slab. Break that up w a smaller FB similar to the GBs w angular lines to marry w tha cabin lines. Install a mast (again like the GBs) to visually soften the big slab roof. Put a radar arch that visually looks like it belongs w the mast or make the mast look like it belongs w the arch. Put a white dinghy on the aft sun deck that looks not unlike the white boat below. Lastly * ..
paint the frame around the transom door white to make it disappear as much as possible. Then go show off your new boat. Don't know what you'll do next week though.
Vessel Model: 2001 Island Gypsy 32 Europa (Hull #146)
Join Date: Sep 2008
RE: Removing flybridge?
We like our flybridge and wouldn't dream of cutting it off, even though with it the boat is a bit too tall in profile for her length. Had 22 years of a sedan type in which we felt somewhat entombed. Now we have significantly more outside space to enjoy and the helmsperson on the bridge can interact with others underway instead of being merely the chauffeur while others socialized in the cockpit. We do boat in a climate where a flybridge is usable for only a relatively small percentage of the time, but when we can use it, we enjoy it immensely.
Sorry Marin I don't see any lines or other visual features of GBs that relate to commercial boats.
The GB hull profile*above the waterline is derived from*the typical shape for a working fishboat of this size.* Also the helm station toward the forward end of the boat with the small cuddy cabin ahead of it is typical fishboat.
Take a GB36 profile, remove the flying bridge and*aft cabin altogether and shorten the main cabin so that it ends*just behind the main cabin door and you have the typical profile of a salmon troller or other smaller working fishboat.* The aft cabin on a GB36 sits where the fish well would be.***The design tie to working boats*was more obvious in "Spray," the prototype GB36 and the boat that started the whole GB line.
Here are photos of a working fishboat, Spray, and our boat right after we bought it (so it has it's old radar, antennas, and the then-new, crappy Bruce anchor.
-- Edited by Marin on Thursday 24th of June 2010 05:11:55 PM
I like it with the flybridge gone also. All you would need is a nice mast for radar and elctronics
to balance the look. Keep it short and properly proportioned and you will be the envy of
I think you misinterpreted the commas.* The photos are*of a working fishboat (and) "Spray" (and) our boat.* I believe the boat in the first photo is "Gold Dust." I just grabbed it off the web but I seem to recall that this was the boat's name.
-- Edited by Marin on Thursday 24th of June 2010 06:50:08 PM