- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 10,123
- Location
- Australia
- Vessel Name
- Now boatless - sold 6/2018
- Vessel Make
- Had a Clipper (CHB) 34
Personally, Hendo, seeing you're asking. I would never recommend a fly bridge only helm in a non- planing boat. In a displacement boat the seas only have to be moderate for it to be a horrible place to be, as roll and pitching is magnified, but also it becomes damn dangerous even vacating it to a downstairs helm like I have. Yes, I know there are folk on here that almost exclusively drive from up top, but they usually own semi- planing hulled boats, so the increased speed smooths things out quite a bit, or much bigger craft than Yours and mine. Look, the number of times I drive from up top is minimal, and I could do without the fly bridge quite happily, and I'm in Queensland.
For another example of why, if I didn't have it, I would not be faced with installing not one but two new sonars, because the flyBridge unit and my main have both gone AWOL at once. I'd hate however to have no choice but to drive from up there, so duplication is the name of the game if you have a fly bridge.
As the the hull shape. Sory, but I'm with Bruce here. I still think you I 380 approach was the better one for your size, construction method, and speed. Leave the plastic fantastics to those who love to zoom around at 200 litres per hour.
Just think of all that neat space up top for solar cells, dink stowage etc, not to mention less wind age and simpler construction, and far better environment inside for expensive instruments. If you enclose a flybridge in our latitude to provide all that, as FF would say, you've created a hothouse.
You did ask...
For another example of why, if I didn't have it, I would not be faced with installing not one but two new sonars, because the flyBridge unit and my main have both gone AWOL at once. I'd hate however to have no choice but to drive from up there, so duplication is the name of the game if you have a fly bridge.
As the the hull shape. Sory, but I'm with Bruce here. I still think you I 380 approach was the better one for your size, construction method, and speed. Leave the plastic fantastics to those who love to zoom around at 200 litres per hour.
Just think of all that neat space up top for solar cells, dink stowage etc, not to mention less wind age and simpler construction, and far better environment inside for expensive instruments. If you enclose a flybridge in our latitude to provide all that, as FF would say, you've created a hothouse.
You did ask...
