Weather they are backward or forward slant the windows have to be strong/thick enough to withstand the water and winds.* I our windows are 3/8 shatter resistant glass. So if the windows and frame are not thick/strong enough it does not matter which way the windows are slanted. I would prefer wannabee windows as it would make the Eagle more uglier than she already is.*
-- Edited by Phil Fill on Monday 10th of January 2011 07:59:46 AM
Let the record reflect that a significant number of coastal shrimp boats, commercial variety, utilize forward slanted windshields.
Draw your own conclusiions from the guys who make a living out there.
I wasn't aware I was making a fashion statement when I got wannabe windows. *My main thoughts were along the lines of the commercial boats earning a living in my home town. *With regards to green water striking the forward-leaning PH windows, I believe this is one of the purposes of the Portuguese Bridge - to deflect green water.
Whatever the window configuration if one is considerably concerned about taking seas over the bow the fwd pilothouse you see on almost all trawlers should be dismissed.
Serious deep sea vessels have the pilothouse aft.
Dave,
I don't know but I'm sure your'e right and if the boat is too small for the Portuguese Bridge a well designed hydraulic brake could be used in it's place.
Phil Fill,
" our windows are 3/8 shatter resistant glass." Shatter proof or not tempered glass is MUCH stronger. I assume you refer to safety glass w sandwiched in plastic sheet.
But if the tempered glass does break one could have 137 glass knives in the face.
The have that clear plastic in between the two pains of glass, like auto wind shields*so they will not shatter.* Besides we have*a high 10 ft bow and a portuguese bridge to protect, and*wide brim.* Back on PMM we had this discussion sever times about slant and thickness of windows.*
Since several 58 ft Roughwater have crossed oceans and cruise up down the coast*the glass seems to be acceptable.*
nomadwilly wrote:One thing I'm sure about is that when there's a big sea coming aboard over the bow the fwd slant windows are BAD. The glass is then at right angles to the onrushing water maximizing the impact and maximizing the potential for window failure.
*
Eric--- I think it's the other way round.* The skipper of the RNLI boat I went out on in the UK, pictured below, told me the reason their boats (and other vessels that work in rough water) have forward-raked or reverse-raked pilothouse windows is that when green water comes aboard it is coming straight at or curving down onto the front windows.* Raked-back windows, like the ones on the majority of our recreational boats including GB, position the glass at an angle where it can be hit square on by this water.* Now a GB (like most other recreational "trawlers") isn't going to be going fast enough for the forward motion of the boat to increase the force of the impact but the wind could accelerate the water into the glass.* And boats like the USCG and RNLI rescue boats are very often going fast.
In any event, the reverse-raked windows, which on a boat intended to do serious work in serious water (in other words, NOT a coastal recreational trawler) are made of very heavy glass, deflect the impact of the solid water.* To accomplish the same thing with normally raked windows you'd have to slant them way, way back. and that could cause all sorts of space and headroom problems.
Add in the benefit of glare reduction and whatnot and the reverse-raked windows make all sorts of sense on boats that encounter rough sea conditions on a regular basis.* In this case it's a form follows function thing.
On a recreational coastal cruiser they are little more than image statements in my opinion.* True, they provide more overhead room for overhead-mounted electronics but that position seems to be falling out of favor-- at least with manufacturers--- as a place to mount electronics, and given the move toward all-in-one boxes these days the number of electronic components one needs to provide the desired navigation and communications functions is shrinking every day it seems.* So the "more room overhead" rationalization doesn't strike me as being much of an advantage in my opinion.* And based on the comments from most of the posters in another thread on this forum, mounting electronics overhead at a helm station is not viewed as a Good Idea by very many people.
The anti-glare aspect of reverse-raked windows could be an advantage, depending on how the boat's display screens are mounted.* But I believe that any glare problem on a normal, aft-slanted windshield or a vertical windshield is due to poor display mounting choices, not an automatic function of slanting glass backwards.* We don't make a habit of running at night but the few times we have there has been no glare whatsoever on our normally raked windows from our various displays, so reverse-raked windows would have no advantage whatsoever on our boat* All our displays are mounted in such a way that they are totally invisible to the windshield glass.* During the day we run with a big, bright, open chartbook at the helm.* Neither it nor anything else reflects in the glass regardless of the light direction or intensity.
As a side note, a number of airplanes in the 1930s were first made with reverse-raked windshields.* Two I am quite familiar with were the Boeing Model 80 tri-motor and the Boeing Model 247.* The reverse-raked windshields were thought to help reduce glare, and in each case they were elminated almost immediately for drag and airflow reasons and the aft-raked glass proved to create no problems with glare.* The photo is of an early 247.
-- Edited by Marin on Monday 10th of January 2011 01:27:05 PM
OC Diver
I don't know if the JFK will be scrapped or not . The tug that I run did tow the carrier that is sunk off of the Florida pan handle (I think the America?). I'm told that it costs 20-22 million dollars to
sink a carrier.
If one does come out on the east coast, we will probably be involved.I wasn't aware that the Radford is being sunk this spring.
City: Fort Myers, FL... Summers in the Great Lakes
Vessel Name: Slow Hand
Vessel Model: Cherubini Independence 45
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 11,800
RE: Wannabee Windows
Quote:
Sailor of Fortune wrote:
OC Diver
I don't know if the JFK will be scrapped or not . The tug that I run did tow the carrier that is sunk off of the Florida pan handle (I think the America?). I'm told that it costs 20-22 million dollars to
sink a carrier.
If one does come out on the east coast, we will probably be involved.I wasn't aware that the Radford is being sunk this spring.
The one on the pan handle (Pensacola area) is the USS Oriskany (CV/CVA-34); I have dove it. My mistake, JFK was decommissioned 2007 and looks like it will now go to Boston as a museum or memorial.
Radford is 2 years late for sinking; cleaned and almost ready to go. There is still a short list to satisfy the EPA. We did the site survey where it will be sunk last spring. Radford cost was $600K split between MD, DE, NJ, and the Navy.
Ha Ha Ha Ha*Thats good Rick. Caught w my pants down * ...way down.
Marin,
I didn't notice the fwd raked windows on the 247 untill I ckicked on it. Wow. That must have caused all manner of heavy turbulence on the rudder.
-- Edited by nomadwilly on Monday 10th of January 2011 06:44:19 PM
I didn't notice the fwd raked windows on the 247 untill I ckicked on it. Wow. That must have caused all manner of heavy turbulence on the rudder.
No, I don't think it did.**Both planes were put into production and sold to airlines and operated in passenger service*with the reverse-raked windshield panels.* The design made it*through flight testing with no problems so I have to assume they did not cause any control issues.
They probably caused some drag issues, however, and there may have been other reasons for their discontinuation in later versions of the planes.* They certainly LOOK draggy, don't they?
* nomadwilly wrote:Marin,
*
I didn't notice the fwd raked windows on the 247 untill I ckicked on it. Wow. That must have caused all manner of heavy turbulence on the rudder.
No, I don't think it did.**Both planes were put into production and sold to airlines and operated in passenger service*with the reverse-raked windshield panels.* The design made it*through flight testing with no problems so I have to assume they did not cause any control issues.
They probably caused some drag issues, however, and there may have been other reasons for their discontinuation in later versions of the planes.* They certainly LOOK draggy, don't they?
I understand that a full Raised Pilot House is being considered as a revision to the 787. There is even a boat deck for a dink in case of a water landing.
Carey wrote:I understand that a full Raised Pilot House is being considered as a revision to the 787. There is even a boat deck for a dink in case of a water landing.
Don't know about that one.* Right now we're just trying to get the 787 delivered and into*service.* We'll worry about modifications like flying bridges, piothouses, and boat decks later if the airlines want them.
The 777, however, is available with a boat deck.* Above the aft cabin*overhead is a wonderful crew rest area.* We moved all the systems--- ducting, wiring, etc.-- outboard to make room for a long, eight or ten berth*crew rest in back and a two person*flight crew rest up front.* Best accomodations on the plane.* No windows, but the berths are great and the pilots get the aviation equivelant of Lazy Boys in their crew rest over the forward galley.
The 747 was a pilothouse design from the outset although the lines were not drawn by Aurthur deFever.* The 47 was designed as a freighter for Juan Tripp of Pan Am ( the passenger plane of the era was to be the SST) which is the reason the flight deck is above the main deck and streamlined with a hump.* More room for*cargo.* When the SST was killed the 747 became the premier passenger plane of its day but it was never intended for this purpose.*
They first tried a wannabe funnel on the 747 to go along with the "ocean liner of the skies" image but it was too draggy so they did away with it.* Eric would have liked it, though.
The 747, by the way, had nothing whatsoever in common with Boeing's losing entry in the large cargo transport aka C-5 competition which Lockheed won.* Boeing's C-5*entry looked more or less just like*Lockheed's.*
Why do I like the statement "serious boats have their pilot house toward the rear"?
Don
I'm not surprised. The rest of us are envious, and will try to berate the concept.
I'm unsure of what is meant here.* Would the meaning change if one had said "serious boats have their pilot houses near the stern"?
*
Mark, nothing was meant here.* I was making light of the statement.* My boat is not a serious ovvshore cruiser.* It is a coastal cruisers.* I consider your boat a serious offshore cruiser.* As a matter of fact, I went on the Seahorse Marine site.* I looked at the Coot and the 38 Diesel Duck.* I don't know what I will be doing in the future, but if one of those boats seemed to fit my needs, I would be very interested.* I like the idea of a steel boat.
* I looked at the Coot and the 38 Diesel Duck.* I don't know what I will be doing in the future, but if one of those boats seemed to fit my needs, I would be very interested.* I like the idea of a steel boat.
The builder describes the Coot as a coastal/inland cruiser.* If I had the money and planned to make long offshore cruises, I'd have gotten a 38 Diesel Duck
Well that was a bit of a shock. I, of course saw my Willy thumbnail, had'nt read any of the text but seemed to sense something strange. Even in the thumbnail I saw that the windows looked like they were slanted fwd so I suspected an optical illusion so I clicked on the thumbnail*** ...and HOLY FLIT!*** Bout fell out of my chair!
Now I've got to admit it dosn't look exactly bad*** ...but I'm so intimate w Willy I can't look at the picture without thinking how strange or weird she looks. One thing I can say for sure is that I DO like the visor. Been looking at Nordics and some of the later ones have Visors not unlike what hustlers put on Willy. Well*** ...I guess I need to be emotionally prepared to log on this site. Hey Mark***** that visor would look very good on Coot. Maybe you could talk hustler into do'in a mod on your Coot. But he's got to have an image to work with.
Linear Mode
