Canoe (or double end) boats efficient?

This is from the thread “Will trawlers disapear?”

socal,
A canoe stern is not much different than a run-of-the mill sailboat stern. So providing a canoe stern on a sailboat is a very insignificant difference. So style could be a resson to do it.
But on a trawler it’ significant to say the least. First off most trawlers are SD hulled boats and one almost needs a SD hull for a canoe stern.

Dan wrote;
“Is it correct to say, canoe stern do not like following seas?“

Very incorrect. Basically it’s the best stern for following seas.
I once asked someone who should know the same question and he said ideally the best hull for stern seas would be when both ends looked just the same.

I don’t know how many will relate to this but a double end boat at an angle to stern seas will nest into two crests and a trough w the w the port bow resting on the face of a wave ahead and the stern nesting on the stbd stern quarter of the wave aft. Think about it.
With the stern at an angle with a big box corner sticking out or trying to be inside that stern wave a lot of lift will occur and twist the boat .. anti- clockwise. This will push the stbd bow into the wave but little lift will occur at the corner because of the pointy shape. Boat is experiencing heavy anti-clockwise roll input. W/o lift fwd and to stbd the aft port corner will lift easily and smartly rotate the boat for a nice beginning of an anti-clockwise capsize falling to port into the trough.
But with a canoe stern the same scenario above would not promote boat rotation promoted by the port stern corner as in above. And thus w both corners much the same (in shape) only small amounts of lift will occur AT EACH CORNER. So far less rolling forces will be acting on the boat. So there’s little rolling .. depending on specific design.

That does not seem to be the case in sailboats. Back in the old IOR days, the racing rules favored pinched ends, with very narrow transoms and slack buttocks (no, that isn't what you think....). The boats were VERY cranky downwind, broaching easily. One of the reasons seemed to be that when overtaken by a wave, bouncy shifts to the ends - and the ends have no beam so no stability. New racing boats are quite wide in at the transom, nearly and wide as max beam How this relates to powerboats I am uncertain, but it seems like the same things apply. Actually many racing boats now show a distinct chine aft, though this is really just a handicapping rule aberration.

DDW,
I think I know the boats You speak of. Sailboats in general favored deep keels and as you say pinched ends. It was in the main a knock down drag out effort to maximize light air sailing performance. Now they seem to favor anything that maximizes WLL. WLL = speed. That’s the mindset.

But the low WLL boats you speak of were race boats. Extremes to win the race. Never mind that they (if equipped) would make poor cruising boats. Directional stability even in canoes is important. But structural integrity and other important elements of design are frequently abandoned in the interest of racing.

And in flat water w long boats w short WLL Work well I’d guess. Probably instant helm response. But all over the place w any significant waves.

There was a discussion some time ago on TF about whether or not my 30’ Willard was a “double ender”. I thought not as she really isn’t pointy in the stern. She has rather profound “cheeks” aft. She’s much closer to “rounded”. And she wallows around some (at least) in the nasty but she’s got a big rudder. Most of the boats w really pointy ends have already been built and have lived their lives and are long gone.

"Spidsgatter" or "Spissgatter"

The Norwegian and Dutch builders like these so it must be a North Sea thing..

Here are two of my 'canoe sterns'. I like them but no idea if they are better or worse in a following sea than a more square and buoyant stern. It would make sense that they would have less buoyancy aft so perhaps more likely to get boarded and thus in need of more freeing ports. But, also, less likely to be grabbed and broached by a following breaking sea which would likely slide under the stern with this shape.

We’re in the canoe stern club and find following seas to be almost a joy. In some cases we’ll tack to put the stern on the waves rather than the beam to smooth out the ride.

It's always been hard for me to compare. Willard Marine started in the late 1950s and worked with William Garden to modify a 34-foot design he'd done several years earlier. They stretched to 36 foot and started building them in 1961 when Rattler, hull #1 rolled down the quay in Newport Beach California. Every production trawler since then was influenced by the Garden design, though Willard has also built many transom boats too, just more as custom boats vs production.

Reason I have a hard time comparing is that double enders (canoe, whatever) tend to have design choices that lean towards seaworthiness priorities. For example, the W36 was designed with a dry weight of 25,000 lbs with 6,000 lbs of ballast - almost 25% of the displacement is ballast. Contrast that to other displacement boats like the KK42 and N46 with around 8%-10% ballast. The A/B ratio (above/below, a rough indicator of stability) is also extremely low on my W36 meaning she has excellent ultimate stability.. Nordhavns may have construction to withstand heavy conditions (which is impressive to be sure - the big windows on my W36 pale in comparison), but from a design perspective that is fit-for-purpose to be in the ocean, Bill Garden got it right 70 years ago.

Double enders lacks a roomy lazarette for tons of gear which is a tradeoff. Also lacking is a swim platform. These design tradeoffs are why you do not see double enders marketed. Everyone loves their look but they don't want to give up the practical aspects of a transom boat.

I can tell you a Willard is a dream to run in the ocean. I can tell you the round butt means the stern wake is reassembled into flat water quickly and efficiently compared to the harsh corners of a transom boat. But I can't say the beautiful ride is solely due to the round stern. It's a total package based on a design from one of the great Naval architects, and comes from a time where marketing had a lessor influence on boat design than it does today.

Peter

Only a few of the above pictures are canoe sterns.
There are canoe sterns, fan tail sterns, double ended sterns, cruiser sterns, and other terms to describe sterns other than the most common transom stern seen on sailboats.
Different sterns evolved in response to available materials and construction technologies available at the time.
Behavior in a seaway, or surfing or efficacy is not defined by any one feature. Designs work when the totality of the design works. It’s how the various design features interact that’s important.
I’ve owned, sailed and been in heavy weather in
Tayana(R.Perry)
PSC(W. Crealock)
And done passages on a Westsail.
None had a transom stern. All had a large variance in behavior. None were canoe sterns as strictly defined.
Non transom sterns aren’t seen in new construction either in power or sail for a definite reason. There’s no need as construction does not need to employ that feature for strength or ease of construction. Tank testing and now CAD has shown its less seaworthy, less efficient and slower than other designs while causing less useful interior space. This is particularly true for sailboat hulls where the move has been to decrease wetted surface by employing wide sterns (and sometimes chines) so at any heel underwater surface is both balanced and creates no turbulence. In cruising hulls, now for decades, the transom stern is supreme. The main goal is to create a balanced hull that tracks well but remains responsive to rudder input. Remains controllable when surfing. Doesn’t stall nor catch its bows in a seaway. Low risk of a broach.
My last boat was a Schumacher design (O46). It clearly outperformed all the prior non transom stern designs previously owned. It also outperformed the prior transom stern designs from S&S, Atkins, and 3 Cape Dories.
Naval architects are smart. They make full use of computer design. They learn from prior experience and stand on the shoulders of giants. Some older designs are extremely good and remain excellent boats. But think you will be repetitively disappointed if you look at only one design feature to define a boat.

Hipp writes;
“But think you will be repetitively disappointed if you look at only one design feature to define a boat.“

I do ... FD
But re the rounded stern ..
Look at Airstream’s avatar.
You will see a quartered wave will snuggle right up to her port bow w/o lifting that corner of the boat.
Consider a wave attacking the stbd stern quarter. Since the Krogen (like the Willards) have a fairly full full stern w rounded corners there is still a lot of lift from the big “cheeks” that stick out and respond to the stern wave and provide probably at least half the lift of the corner of a box stern.

This is why I don’t consider the full rounded stern as the ultimate stern sea boat. This is why I don’t consider these rounded stern boats true double enders. Most true double enders are found on sailboats and commercial boats and ships. The stern has hollow stern quarters (like the bow) in a true double ender .. IMO. If the KK or Willard had a stern w hollow quarter corners like their bows they would fit the description of an ideal stern sea boat .. where-as the stern truly resembled the bow. The rounded stern boat is actually a compromise. But still I’ll take my rounded stern happily over the box sterns of most trawlers in following seas. I need to work my helm significantly ... but my Willard w it’s rounded stern does stay in control. Night and day compared to box sterns.

Canoe sterns and other double enders look beautiful and work well in a seaway, but I have always wondered how one would get the dog in and out of the tender. Groceries and people too....

Woodland Hills said:

Canoe sterns and other double enders look beautiful and work well in a seaway, but I have always wondered how one would get the dog in and out of the tender. Groceries and people too....

Click to expand...

You are right - dinghy boarding is definitely compromised. We have a hull-gate but it's small. Not like a nice broad swim platform. But there are some pluses - we don't pay slip-rent on a swim platform, and the settee in the aft deck is sumptuous. But I have to admit that if there is a little chop in the anchorage, getting from dinghy to boat is a bit rocky.

Peter

As I posted in the other thread...what do the transoms of many rescue boats, pilot boats, surf boats look like.


I doubt that the similarities that have endured even well into the computer age can't be all wrong....


Unless of course as pointed out...other compromises altered basic hull shapes to the point they no longer worked well with a "rounded or pointed" stern.


And as usual it depends....if one is talking huge swells with plenty of period...a boat will react differently than in 6 foot steep breaking North Atlantic waves.

In my mind, relative buoyancy of the stern and bow matters. The more full and buoyant the stern is, the more full and buoyant the bow needs to be for good behavior in following seas. Basically, you don't want a hull that's full aft and pointy up forward where the stern gets picked up and the bow gets stuck deep into a wave, making a broach likely. You either want the stern to split the wave without lifting too much, or you want the bow to lift along with the stern to prevent it from digging in and shifting the center of rotation too far forward.

Here is a good example (but neglected) of a double end boat.

You can see right where most of my rounded stern is on Willy .. there's nothing. But she's got cheeks, full cheeks .. amidships. Here the keel and rudder along w the deep forefoot control the Susan Gael's wandering and yawing. Very very minimal broaching tendencies IMO.
I met the owner of Susan Gael once. He rarely showed up but eventually he came and gave this boat the attention she deserved. At Latitude Marine.

2nd photo is Susan Gael from the stern. Above the photo (upper right) there is/was a "V" shaped transom out of the water at rest.
3rd photo is Dixie II from Craig showing her slack lines or total opposite of the cheeks on our round stern boats.
4th photo is Dixie II on the Craig floats.
5th picture is a boat some of you may have seen. The Griffin in Thorne Bay. Aren't privy to her underwater lines so can only guess what kind of stern she actually has. Double ended probably but not far from a round stern design.
No FG boats in the bunch.

The ocean doesn’t see what’s above the water line to often if you’re doing things right. There was a long discussion about hulls on Affordable Adventures. Many long distance cruisers commented. There been fairly heated discussions on this subject as well on several boat builder sites as well as SailNet and cruising Anarchy.
One school (adhered to by most of the blue water and RTW crowd ) says a balanced hull is best for safety and all around behavior. A balanced hull means the part that actually sees the water is balanced at rest and any expected degree of heel or boarding sea. Seems our CG and pretty much all SAR boats currently in use agree. They are not canoe sterns or derivatives but rather are almost universally transom sterns.
Was in a long thread where many newbies and old school folks contended full keel, heavy (and often double ended) old designs were safer in a seaway or extreme weather (>force 8) . Fortunately several actual naval architects chimed in. From insurance claims, fastnet experience as well as multiple other catastrophes it’s clear the older designs are less safe and perform less well.
This thread seems to be heading in a similar direction. Yes there are truly beautiful, elegant, and excellent older designs but there’s no question the naval architects haven’t been standing still for the last 20 to 30 years. From Dashew on the tread has been away from the beautiful boats posted here and toward balanced hulls. Look at Bray, Seaton, Tenant, Kasten, Gerr, the PAE group or even the DDs. Nothing but transom sterns. Recent contemporary designs have returned to the long and thin concept. So when speaking of hulls <65’ that are crossing oceans the canoe or double ended stern has been pretty much abandoned. There’s a reason. What’s above the waterline doesn’t matter. It’s what gets wet that does.

Hipp,
You can’t change physics w vogueness.
Trends in the last few years haven’t stood the test of time.
Or the very long time saying “time will tell”.

As mentioned in a previous post, I really can't personally pinpoint the effect of a double-end variant on handling in a following sea or otherwise. There are just so many other design things going on that I just can't isolate a handling characteristic. In big following seas, boats corkscrew and I just can't tell if it would be better or worse with a different transom.

But I will push-back a bit on Hippos excellent post, though I tread lightly. First, for the past 40+ years, sailboats have been working through a debate on speed vs tank. Dashew Deerfoot design was an early adherent that speed equals safety. J-Boats started building racer-cruiser designs with retractable sprits. In modern terms, I'm sure Hippos Schumacher design is well within that camp.

But the reason I'm not willing to go all-in on sailboat evolution as a template for design-based safety for powerboats is twofold. First, cruising sailboats, more than cruising powerboats, have succumbed to the pressures of marketing. How will the boat look at the boat show docks? Open transom, cavernous interior, inboard shrouds dead-ended into the hull sides, etc. Second reason is the fast vs tank debate is really about light air performance. Powerboat buyers mostly wanted nice interiors from the start, and powerboats go the same displacement speed regardless.

But here's where there are nuances. When you look at a cargo ship, they have a broad slab sided transom. But not at the waterline where they are double ended (I think is the gist of Hippos post). The KK42 was famous for its wine glass transom that was double ended at the waterline. George Buehler was an adherent of this too, though the DDs are a bit of an outlier as the design is heavily influenced by ease of construction for the DIY owner/builder.

PAE tank tests their boats, but not with a flybridge. I love the Defever 44 but it's a bit tender due to its massive above water superstructure. The n47 with flybridge is similar. These boats positively need stabilization. What gets interesting for me is reading Gerr who has done a ton of work on stability. He argues that stabilization does not make a boat more stabile, just more comfortable. Stability is a key safety factor in storm conditions (see: Perfect Storm). If that's masked by clever marketing (testing without a flybridge when almost all boats are ordered with the flybridge), or by stabilizers, what's the point?

The point may be that safety/stability may not be needed. Bruce Kessler who circumnavigated on his Delta Marine 65 footer put over 100,000 miles down. When asked about heavy weather, he said he didn't really hit any. This is similar to what many sail-circumnavigators say.

So where does this leave the discussion, at least in my mind? Marketing is such a heavy influence in recreational boats that it cannot be ignored. The demand has a dominant effect on design. When you carefully read Jim Leishmans update of Beebes VUP, he quietly mentions the design changes in the N46 in the sole interest of marketing. The absence of double enders in the market is evidence of how practical a transom is for boarding, not that there aren't safety or handling benefits to a double ender. But in the end, if a double ender is indeed more seaworthy, do you really need it if what Bruce Kessler says is true?

For me, so much about owning a boat is emotional. I just love the look and posture of a double ender. As my wife says, "real boats have round butts." Who am I to correct her?

Peter

The big hassle as usual is there is no agreed on definition of the concept of "efficiency" as a cruiser..

Fast for some, cheap to operate , sea kindly, shallow draft , the list of desirements is never ending.

Please understand I’ve sailed thousands of miles on a Tayana 37( boat which has done more blue water miles then anything including V40) and Pacific Seacraft. I love the look of double enders. But that doesn’t negate the physics. And it’s on the basis of physics that NO new designs in the production sailboat market exist for the last 20 years that employ that stern.
There’s a huge ongoing discussion about the effect of marketing on current production sailboat design.
The “slice of pizza” boats have above deck visual cues. They are extremely broad in the stern. This form was developed to serve the round the world racers in the Southern Ocean. Perhaps the most dangerous ocean of all. It’s hallmark is at any angle of heel the immersed surface is balanced. The above water appearance is viewed as irrelevant. The ends are extremely light with nearly all weight centralized creating a great gyradius. The bows and sterns have great reserve buoyancy. The bows often have wave piercing properties. They are empty shells. Go to NEB and see how spartan the insides are. Often they employ chines to achieve this balanced hull shape. They perform while planing, surfing or in displacement mode. Now production houses have taken this visual cues - double helms, double rudders, chines, broad sterns in an effort to convince prospective buyers they are buying a good seaboat. But they are not. You can’t put a cruising interior into these boats. You can’t achieve the hydrodynamics without using prepreg, cooked CF and empty ends. So the production boats that look like Volvo, open 60 or minitransat boats actually have little or nothing in common with them. The response has been a division of the new sailboat market. Blue water people buying balanced hulls. Many are “traditional” looking like Outbound, Hylas, Passport, Amel, HR, Boreal, K &M and the like. Some are truly boats that keep to the design parameters of the Southern Ocean racers like Pogo (made in wood epoxy to achieve the “ultralight” designation).
So you’re right much of current sailboat marketing is hype. But the market is now a fight between unsafe production pizza pie boats and true balanced hulls either achieved with a more traditional look above the water or utilizing the lessons learned from the round the world racers. Rounded sterns are a thing of the past. No new designs in 20-30 years except for the rare one off.
The same hype v reality is occurring in the multi hull world. There’s cats aimed at the charter market. They hobbyhorse, are slow and have poor righting arm. But they allow 4 staterooms. The features of a good multi seaboat are missing. Adequate bridge deck height and no bridge deck before the mast. Ultra thin hulls. Extremely low displacement. Adequate beam to provide a high righting arm and high sail area. So you have seaboats (Catana, Gunboat, Razorcat, Outremer, Rapido) and charter boats unsafe in weather.

FF said:

The big hassle as usual is there is no agreed on definition of the concept of "efficiency" as a cruiser..

Fast for some, cheap to operate , sea kindly, shallow draft , the list of desirements is never ending.

Click to expand...

The "confirmation bias" effect. People fall in love with a certain look or design attribute (such as double enders) and back into full-on defense and support of their decision. Let's face it - if boat design were objective, you'd probably end up with some sort of pontoon boat with a keel or something absurd.

I will not tell you the Willard 36 is the greatest production trawler ever built (though she was the first in fiberglass, starting in 1961). Only that for us, she's perfect, worts and all.

I repeat my wife's guidance. "real boats have round butts." Cheryll may not be a Naval Architect but she was a navy brat raised in Groton CT if that counts for anything. It's good enough for me

Peter

Have surfed in boats with all sorts of ends. The splitting a boarding sea coming from aft is TOTAL hype. I was repetitively pooped in the Tayana. Have the broken ribs to prove it. Was never pooped in the Outbound including runs in big seas. Use your common sense. It’s very rare a boarding sea come at you exactly parallel to the long axis of your boat. It’s nearly always a bit of a diagonal. The transom stern presents much less area to be struck when the sea hits you off that centerline axis. The double ender presents more so has a greater tendency to broach and is much harder to helm. In this setting, running before big seas, the key is enough reserve buoyancy that the stern rises rapidly enough you don’t get pooped or if you do it’s minimal. The double ender due to lack of of available volume (unless the NA is very clever) can’t achieve that reserve buoyancy. This was shown in the Hobart, Fastnet and other marine disasters. The double ended full keeled heavy displacement boats were overwhelmed more frequently with resultant increased deaths in that group.
The Scandinavian lifeboat designs which evolved into Eric, Westsail and other early GRP blue water sailboats was predicated on building in wood. Once it was understood what the strengths and weaknesses of GRP were that type of design was abandoned. So at present no new SAR, round the world racer, motorized pilot boat, crew boat or other boat expected to be subjected to heavy weather employs that design element.
Willards are gorgeous. They were made by a house primarily involve in making commercial not recreational craft. They are very sturdy boats. We’ve considered buying one. We abandoned that desire as it doesn’t fit our program. Think it most unfortunate there’s such a small blue water power boat market there’s little competition. Resultant expense driven higher, and R&D less. You talk with builders and brokers asking for a Gz curve or a AVS and they look at you like you have two heads. Sad.

Even Beebe identified more than a half century ago that the hull shape underwater is more important than above when it comes to handling running conditions and efficiency. That being said, personally I love the look of a well rounded stern (not necessarily canoe though, perhaps "cruiser stern") and would give up a swim platform for it.

Am not a big fan of big, flat square transoms especially in aft cabins where they sometimes take on the look of a dhow. Also have had bad experience, being repeatedly pooped while running in 20'+ seas for 4 or 5 days. Big, foamy white water all over the place and those heavy loads (astern and quartering) on the transom definitely pushed the stern around and made it difficult to steer with that wild yaw. It's a no-brainer that a rounded shape would have lessened the load in those extreme conditions.

A naval architect or someone quite knowledgeable on the subject (Hippo above seems to know well), might well argue my beliefs, but we make decisions in life based on our own beliefs and experience, not just on what the facts tell us - that's what make us individuals.

Some other things worth mentioning is the fact that the LE of wind driven seas is steeper than the trailing edge. And the face or LE is what attacks the stern. This and seas are seldom close enough together to provide a place for the bow to rest on. So the hypothetical (stern on a stbd sea and bow on a port sea) for balance of roll input seldom happens. The bow is usually being thrown down into the trough where there is little support to counteract the lift on the stbd stern quarter. So the lift from whatever stern quarter will more or less pitch the bow down where there there is no mass of water to “catch it”. So the stern wave and the lift on the windward quarter can have it’s way with the roll status of the boat. Double enders of course experience much less lift on the stern quarter so less roll input and less tendency to roll into a capsize.

So the boat’s stern is being thrown toward the trough. The soft chine boat has less tendency to “trip” and finalize a capsize. The hard chine will tend to plow water sideways and overall boat stability will need to save the day. I will add that a boat w wide chines fwd will be at an advantage in that much more of the down wave side of the boat will be acting to roll the boat the desired way. And chine tripping has a lot to do w CG. The inertia of the sideways moving boat can only “trip” the boat if the CG is high enough. And combined w stern seas and wind fly bridges and oxygen tents could, through windage promote a capsize. But boats don’t seem to trip on their chines at an alarming rate. But the soft chine is clearly an advantage.

Mako wrote;
“we make decisions in life based on our own beliefs and experience, not just on what the facts tell us - that's what make us individuals.”

I love it .....
But too much “individual” and too few facts could capsize.

And Eric I think we’re talking about extreme conditions which generally only a small percentage of boaters would ever experience

Probablyeeeee .....
But I’ve seen much of it and that’s why I bought a soft stern boat seaworthy in several other ways and capable of about 700-1000mi. on a tank. I sold my other boat (29’ SumnerCraft) w a Sabre/Perkins 120 engine. See pics.

The statistics show in survival conditions for small boats(under 60’)
Full keel boats do worse of all.
Fins next best and the higher the aspect of the fin the better they do.
Keel centerboards better
And pure centerboarders best.
This is obviously counter intuitive. But the reality is if all have the same AVS and righting arm the centerboarder with side down a wave even if broadside to a wave whereas the others will trip. Depending on orientation causing a knockdown and down flooding or a full roll or a pitchpole.
The above is from behavior of sail caught in survival weather.
However FD trawlers generally have full keels. Admittedly no where the the lateral plane of sailboats. However unlike sailboats the forward part is cut away or minimally present. So the lateral plane is primarily behind the CG and metacenter. This is good when running before the seas as it has much the same effect as the daggerboards you see at the extreme stern quarters in ocean sailboat designs such as open boats and the Boreals. These go down when on a run. The true symmetric double enders do not. They have more or totally symmetry lateral plane with the bottom of the keel parallel to the waterline. Last few days I’ve been going by the “Chatham” as we do late season stripper fishing. A very famous motorized life boat based on the classic redingskoite North Sea double ended fish boats of yore. Yes this vessel could roll 360,not down flood and recover. Yes, it made perhaps the most remarkable and famous rescue of seamen in the history of the United States. She was built in steel but is well preserved. She’s berthed at present in Rock Harbor Eastham, MA. That harbor is tidal and she’s of very modest draft. However she has a vestigial keel and is balanced at any angle of list or cant. Please understand I’m not saying that there isn’t truly great designs incorporating rounded, canoe or doubled ended hulls. There is. But rather saying given all the design problems with them when looking at the totality of the design they have been supplanted in modern design.

That is counterintuitive. I would think steering failure would be the #1 issue that leads to the loss of a vessel. Surprised that the seemingly beefy rudders on full displacement boats are apparently vulnerable.

Peter

To continue the above line of thought. This creates a different set of problems for the small powerboat voyagers. With current sailboat design you have an easy, totally passive out which one person can deploy and then can expect survival even in hurricane winds and seas. Hoving to has been forsaken. Rather go to bare poles, deploy a Jordan series drogue while totally buttoned up, go below and just ride it out. Due to power boat design that’s usually not a option available. Rather an active measure is usually employed. Face the wave train( possibly varying the angle depending on your position relative to the wave) , vary throttle to a speed allowing the best maintenance of your position in the wave train. This requires attention and is tiring. Depending on wave height, period and the AP the AP may not be as effective as a human. Other choice for the small powerboat is lying to a sea anchor. Then very robust steering gear is required as if you’re forced backward it may be destroyed.
I fully expect to modify my behavior. I’ll be much more circumspect in what seasons I will do passage. I’ll be much more conservative in route planning and my discussions with my weather router. Due to budget my choices are limited. Can’t afford a 120’ Norhavn or similar. I understand that fins don’t improve stability in this setting and fish may actually be dangerous. I understand gyros can’t deal with the forces involved so add little or nothing to small boat operators safety in extreme conditions. So I won’t be doing what I once was doing but that’s fine. There’s so many upsides to power I don’t view the transition as limiting.

Now with CF rudders and posts rudder failure is less common. Even we’ll designed aquamat or SS balanced spade rudders do well. When rod linkage instead of wire or chain is used another past failure point is eliminated. However, would note the loss of Gunboats due to rudder failure in following seas. These high speed cats have small rudders much like planing power craft. In weather they may be highly loaded. If the boat stalls and is thrown backwards they can break.

If you are looking to survive perfect storm conditions, your options are very limited and the costs are high. Turns out that avoiding these conditions has become much easier. By far, the most common response from circumnavigators about worst weather encountered is typically pretty benign.

Going back to one of your very first posts about straight shot from New England to BVI. You can reduce risk and complexity in a power boat by taking a slightly longer path down the coast then through the Bahamas, then down into the Caribbean. Sure, it takes a few more days. But your options in boats are much greater.

Peter

Woodland Hills said:

Canoe sterns and other double enders look beautiful and work well in a seaway, but I have always wondered how one would get the dog in and out of the tender. Groceries and people too....

Click to expand...

Our KK54 is setup with a swing down door/platform used for boarding from a floating dock or the dingy.

The dogs got used to it pretty quickly and now jump on or off easily. So far they’ve only gone in the drink once!