256 pilot house?

[Farmboy]

Has anybody posed the question of could the 256 cuddy cabin be fit with a pilot house and twin outboards to possibly offset some of the extra weight forward?

The designer and I have passed a few messages back and forth in the past about what I was wanting prior to this design being released and the closest thing he had was a 28'x10' commercial type hull. The 256 with PH may be what I want/need......shop still not built so it's not urgent that I get answers.

Thanks to all that document their builds, maybe I can do the same someday.

[Oyster]

Yes, They should have some temporary drawings from the past. I tried to do a similar thing, and it would not really work for my personal application. The small issue was in regards to the fuel tank location and size  under the deck as it relates to the interior deck height for the cabin top. To get the self bailing deck and with it, the proposed fuel tank size needs the room under the deck. So dropping the deck down to accomadate a proportioned profile may reduce or totally interfere with the tankage.

[Farmboy]

I have no doubt what you say is correct, surely a happy medium could be found?

I have narrowed my choices down to the 256 by b&b or a 28' "great Alaska" which is very similar to a tolman even though it is by a different designer.

If the pilothouse will work on the 256 I am certain Graham's design will be much better suited for the northern Gulf of Mexico.

[Alan Stewart]

Farmboy,

 

We did some quick renders of the 256 with a pilothouse but didn't take it past "rough concept" as Oyster said. 

 

I decided to share them but please IGNORE the flybridge! we do not feel that the 256 is wide enough to safely handle a flybridge. The Cape Lookout 28 (which we hope to update soon after the Ocracoke 20) would probably support a house and bridge. 

 

https://picasaweb.google.com/109621697666101332150/6312158257371048241?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCLSFkvfLm_78zgE&feat=directlink

 

-Alan

[Farmboy]

Flybridge is not wanted or needed! But the rest is excellent! Looks like approx 7-8' of cockpit left?

And thank you very much Mr. Alan!!

[Oyster]

When you add cabins to these hulls designed around center consoles, be mindful of the materials that you use as you go higher up into the air. Keep it lightweight, even sandwiching foam cores.  This also changes and increases your fuel burn slighty while adding more to the towing bill. So plan accordingly as it relates to your total fuel capacity.So if you will not be directly using your cabin for a direct purpose, maybe build the boat even with the covered front and use it for a few trips before you make the leap, IMO. You can always use a bimini top on the boat if you need the shade, as I do for starters. The most reasonable ones are sold on Amazon, and the fabric is quite nice if you get the 600 denum polyester, if I recall correcly.

[Action Tiger]

Guys, please, I am out of my depth, but...

It seems to me (ha!) that some sort of hard top could be made to attach to a windshield frame? Like a goofy little fall cabin or some such, but classy.

Really, I was looking at my friend's old blazer truck being restored in my yard (what?), and that made me think.

Perhaps a sufficiently strong windshield/side window assembly could be made, and a lightweight top with struts in the back could be bolted or unbolted? Sort of like a hard Bimini. The struts could even be tubing on hinges, so the whole deal could fold flattish for storage? Off the boat, obviously.

That may be the stupidest idea ever, but it wouldn't be the first I've had!

I like the thinking and sharing happening on this forum. It don't do like that everywhere in boat land!

Peace,

Robert

[Chick Ludwig]

I'm with Robert. You can find windshields for nothing, or almost nothing, on old "retired" power boats. It is easy to fit this windshield to your cabin top. You will probably need to build a "base" to attach the windshield frame to. Then just have a convertible top and side curtains made. Often, the old boat will have a good top frame, just the fabric is worn out.

[Farmboy]

I've never said this on a forum before because I didn't want to be laughed offline, but here goes.

I have often wondered why you couldn't build a rigid frame for an automotive windshield and build your pilothouse to match that shape attaching the windshield assembly via some clever latches holding it snug against a curb of some nature thus any boat structure flex or stress wouldn't shatter the glass... And when weather is nice take glass out. Wife even inquired if I could do A/C....anytime you can get the wife comfy I think you are WAY down the road!

This is similar if not exactly what tiger is saying, I been thinking/dreaming about it for years.....

@ Oyster I think every part possible on the PH should be foam cored provided that it will end up being lighter than its ply core counterpart.

I'm sure I have left something out. Once again thanks to all for giving quality input.

[PapaFoxtrot]

The Cape Lookout 28 (which we hope to update soon after the Ocracoke 20) would probably support a house and bridge. 

Alan,

 

Are the OC20 and 24 being redrawn with the integral bracket like the 256?  Somehow, I've gotten it in my head that this is the case.

 

Patrick

[PAR]

I used automotive windshields a number of times, the last on a small runabout and it was from a 1974 VW Karmann Ghia, which was a pain in the butt to make a frame for, but eventually was laminated from mahogany. 

[Alan Stewart]

Patrick, That's correct. we have had so many requests for it that we are redrawing the Ocracoke 20 now with 16 deg of deadrise up from 13, and a bracket built in like the 256. I think after the 20 we plan to redraw the Cape Lookout 28 as there are also many requests for a larger platform than the 256.

[PapaFoxtrot]

Patrick, That's correct. we have had so many requests for it that we are redrawing the Ocracoke 20 now with 16 deg of deadrise up from 13, and a bracket built in like the 256. I think after the 20 we plan to redraw the Cape Lookout 28 as there are also many requests for a larger platform than the 256.

Thanks Alan!  Can't wait to see the new Cape Lookout.

[Farmboy]

Beam on that revised cape lookout?

[Designer]

The beam is just under 10 feet with the guards,

[Farmboy]

Sweet thank you so much Graham! Any rough idea on when that will become available?

[rattus]

Patrick, That's correct. we have had so many requests for it that we are redrawing the Ocracoke 20 now with 16 deg of deadrise up from 13, and a bracket built in like the 256. I think after the 20 we plan to redraw the Cape Lookout 28 as there are also many requests for a larger platform than the 256.

 

 

Alan, care to comment on the reasons and effects of the deadrise increase?

[Designer]

Trying to keep this simple. The most efficient planing hull shape would be a flat rectangle. The problem is that it is not very seaworthy. V or deadrise allows the hull to carve through the chop much better and improve handling.

 

How much deadrise? Is more better? Like everything else it is a compromise, more V requires more horsepower which means more fuel. If carried to it's logical absurdity, the boat needs to be stronger and heavier requiring more HP and more fuel to the point that the boat could end up slower.

 

There is a lot more involved than just deadrise. Carefully blending the entry angle of the bow, the (delta conic) or convexity, the center of gravity etc..

 

The 13 degree transom deadrise is a good compromise between efficiency and soft riding if the bow is carefully blended. A lot of people want to go further offshore into bigger water and are prepared to pay a bit extra to be able to push the boat harder in rough conditions. 16 degrees at the transom is still a good compromise between good riding and HP especially if you add keel flats and lifting strakes.  

[rattus]

Trying to keep this simple. The most efficient planing hull shape would be a flat rectangle. The problem is that it is not very seaworthy. V or deadrise allows the hull to carve through the chop much better and improve handling.

 

How much deadrise? Is more better? Like everything else it is a compromise, more V requires more horsepower which means more fuel. If carried to it's logical absurdity, the boat needs to be stronger and heavier requiring more HP and more fuel to the point that the boat could end up slower.

 

There is a lot more involved than just deadrise. Carefully blending the entry angle of the bow, the (delta conic) or convexity, the center of gravity etc..

 

The 13 degree transom deadrise is a good compromise between efficiency and soft riding if the bow is carefully blended. A lot of people want to go further offshore into bigger water and are prepared to pay a bit extra to be able to push the boat harder in rough conditions. 16 degrees at the transom is still a good compromise between good riding and HP especially if you add keel flats and lifting strakes.  

 

 

I understand the compromise, wondered where the tradeoff "tripline" occurred. Not to be a PITA, but what, very roughly, might be the penalty a 16° deadrise might cost over a 13° at, say, 20 kts in flat water, all else being equal (which it won't be)?

 

Yeah, I need a good simulator. ;-)

[Farmboy]

Been in orange beach Alabama most of the week and have not seen a single forward sloped windshield on a pilothouse boat....is that a NW thing only?