Let's talk hulls

[TheSpecialist]

Was down Cape this past week,and my friend's next store neighbor had retired the 18' whaler after 20+ years of service. In her spot on the dock I noticed a new 18' Parker CC. After a little small talk I mentioned the new boat, and he told me he was not happy with it. He told me the boat rides hard in 2 footers and bangs. He has played with the trim, and can't seem to get a better ride.

What makes a diffrerence in how a hull rides? I thought Parkers were great riding hulls?

Also for you Seacraft guys how do 20' SF ride ? I am thinking of a project hull, but want something that won't pound.

[likwid]

whats he got for an outboard on it and how much fuel was he carrying that it pounded so bad?

i've ridden in a couple parkers and the only time they pounded was WOT.

but only the stupid and those who don't care about their wallets can afford to do that currently

[Bigcat]

Trim tabs will help.

[BigBo]

The Parker is a nice hull. It doesn't have a lot of deadrise though. What you'll find out is; a boat that gives a soft ride generally isn't real stable at rest and vice versa. The Seacraft is a very nice ride with its variable deadrise. Though it's copied by several manufacturers now, it's somewhat unique. Great hull design. Very much sought after. haven't seen too many that weren't "projects". I know we have a few SC owners here on the site and hope they don't bash me for having said that. I would like one myself.

[ktugboat42]

The more deadrise a hull has the smoother the ride but the down side is you need more HP to get on plane and get more kts than a flatter bottom hull.

[capesams]

Parker's are a nock off of the old sea ox..a real work horse..not really made for zipping around in fast...they have a semi-v bottom..it's a very good stable work platform... .very little roll...but do pound in a quartering sea as only the bow has the v and flatten's out about mid-ships with a flat bottom in the stern. Also good for shallow water as it doesn't draw alot of water and get's up on plane faster because of the flat bottom.

20' seacraft..deep v....bring on the 4 footer's w/white caps...good for two when fishing....115 to 150 hp....turn your base ball cap backwards or lose it.

[MakoMike]

See the discussion under the topic of deadrise. I believe the Parkers are a semi V hull which will pound when pushed hard enough into a head sea.

[keeperreaper]

I agree totally with capesams. The potter built seacrafts INHO might be the best designed small hull ever and they built them heavy not like the newer seacrafts. MV hulls will pound versus a DV hull which slices the water but rocks more.

[Mr. Sandman]

What is the unique aspect of the seacraft hull design is that instead of spray strips to separate the flow at speed, the design uses a series of steps in the hull wedge. Most deep V's today have a chine like strip to separate and deflect the flow and this causes a positve presure region under the strip, and inturn tends to reduces the deadrise effectiveness. You need to separate the flow to reduce the wetted area and have a dry ride somehow and what seacraft did was have a inward longitudal step in the hull to obtain separation but without reducing the effectiveness of the V by putting a large spray strip or chine. The result was a very soft riding hull for its size. (Without a lines drawing of common V and a seacraft this is the best I can do to explain why it is better) Look at a seacaft bow on and any other boat, the seacraft hull looks inside out. (sortof)

As for the "old" vs the "new" hulls I think there is a lot of personal issues dealing with this as the lines of the hull and the design principles are the same. I prefer the new hulls as 1) they have no wood in them and 2) they are lighter 3) the resins today are better in seawater. Back in the 70's they used wood for various structual elements and this basically was a bad idea and most of them eventually rotted. I will take a 100% glass boat and if I want a "heaver" boat I will carry more fuel or payload. The weight adds to a softer ride in any boat. But you pay to carry weight around.

I think the cult following of the older boats has evolved because that you can pick them up pretty cheap, fix them up (with a lot of sweat equity) and have a good hull in the end. I think it is great to see the older boats around and I know the owners are proud of the design and their hard work.

Soundings or some other mag I get did a review a while back of the 10 best hull designs ever and seacraft was among them. ***For the size*** this hullform gives you an impressive ride. (its a little boat though, keep that in mind)

[capesams]

older hulls you can:

leave on a trailer for years without the fear of the rollers pushing the bottom in.

you can drill just about anywhere and only need washers to back up the bolt...not alum. plating or starboard or wood.

the sides don't flex like tin and won't spider crack.

punch a hole in anywhere and you have some meat that surrounds that hole to work with/repair.

they can take a pounding and keep on going.

I've seen half the bottom taken off of an older 23 seacraft by a floating log and it came home from offshore safe and sound[thick hull] wouldn't want to try that with a new boat / thin new an approved resin's.

[keeperreaper]

Amen. When your miles offshore I like to know I'm riding a seaworthy safe overbuilt boat for peace of mind.

[Krispy]

Im just starting a long term project on a 20' Seacraft. You would not believe the amount of glass laid up on these boats. 35 years old, hull mint, stringers mint, floor solid, transom solid, not many boats built these days would last that long.

[zacs]

Originally Posted by Krispy

...hull mint, stringers mint, floor solid, transom solid....

So whats the project? sounds like new power, some new electronics and maybe some paint and you are off to the races?

[Krispy]

converting the 650lb i/o thats sinking the scuppers 1.5 inches below the waterline to an o/b. Raising the floor 2" , repositiong the fuel tank forward and converting the cuddy (Seafari model) to a CC by cutting the top off and remolding the cap edges w/ supports. Will also need a few rib supports added into the hull as well.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Krispy

converting the 650lb i/o thats sinking the scuppers 1.5 inches below the waterline to an o/b. Raising the floor 2" , repositiong the fuel tank forward and converting the cuddy (Seafari model) to a CC by cutting the top off and remolding the cap edges w/ supports. Will also need a few rib supports added into the hull as well.

Hey ND - take a look on CSC in Trayder's (he owns CSC) pics to get an idea on when he rebuilt his 20 from near scratch. In fact, when you are up in the NPT area I can probably arrange a quick Q&A with him plus seeing the boat if you are interested.... Good luck with that project...

[JohnR]

I'm not a nautical engineer like some here but some of the advantages of the Seacraft hull is that because the longitudal steps decrease in deadrise from the center of the hull and out, you get a cushioning effect as the hull goes in the water with each outboard step flatter than the inside. So the advange is that you have a deep V center step but a more tame outermost step to mitigate some of the roll of a DeepV. The disadvantage is it still takes a lot of HP to get this hull (like most other deep Vs) up on plane and to remain on plane.

There are more than a few 20' boats with 90hp outboards that do OK but you'd need at least 115 on the 20 SC. The odd 23 footers have 175s but a 23SC is going to want 225 or more...

[Krispy]

Thanks John, I would really appreciate that. CSC is an incredible resource for anyone redoing any boat. Ive looked over Trayders pics a million times as well as all of the other 20 projects, and have a good idea of the direction Im gonna go for each step.

[capesams]

Krispy....just a note of caution...be carefull of moving the tank to far forward...that and leaving the cabin on can put to much weight forward making it bow heavy..rain water or any other water may run forward and not drain out the scupper's without adding lots of weight in the stern......this happened to a man I know who did the very same thing your thinking of doing, but he did it to a 23.

[Krispy]

Thanks for heads up CS. I will be removing the forward cuddy section. Originally the tank sat directly ahead (6") of the i/o, adding alot of weight to the stern of the boat. The new tank position will be more amidships, but still a good 2-2.5ft forward of the old location.
Will the 38gal be sufficient for a 130-150hp o/b? Its in excellent condition, so Id like to reuse it if it makes sense.

[Mr. Sandman]

You might consider doing a few hydrostatic calculations to determine what the static trim will be for various tank/engine sizes and loctaions.

[Pete_G]

I've spent a lot of time in the 18 Parker. It pounds in chop. Not much deadrise and it just does NOT like the chop kicked up by an afternoon sea breeze off RI.

Safe boat and we always get where we're going, often we get wet though. Incredily fuel effecient and fast (on flat water) with the 115 Yamaha, but how often is it flat off RI?

Deep V or at least semi all the way, unless you like being sent running for cover every time the sea breeze kicks up.

[Rip Runner]

You have to ride in a 23 Seacraft to appreciate it. I completely restored this boat with my father and now do custom charters out of it for smaller groups or specialty fishing we might not do on the Blackfin.

The straight inboards ride even better than the outboards, but they are not as fast. I took the wing curtains off this year because I never need them.

[capesams]

U should get some good mileage out of that tank....I had a 30gal in my old 20' ox with a 150 yam on it...all day on the water an no worries getting home..corse I'm not known to be a speed demon either so milage may differ with who's behind the wheel...A friend has a 1973 20' cc sc. with a 150...with him it's dead stop or all out...reguardless of sea conditions....one sob to ride with..but we/re still both here.

[capesams]

Originally Posted by Rip Runner

You have to ride in a 23 Seacraft to appreciate it. I completely restored this boat with my father and now do custom charters out of it for smaller groups or specialty fishing we might not do on the Blackfin.

The straight inboards ride even better than the outboards, but they are not as fast. I took the wing curtains off this year because I never need them.

very very nice job done on restoring her....clean line's....what year is she?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Rip Runner

The straight inboards ride even better than the outboards, but they are not as fast. I took the wing curtains off this year because I never need them.

Captain Chet from Noreast Charters said the 23 SC was the best fiberglass boat in that size class you could own for Buzzards Bay fishing

[numbskull]

I owned a 20' seacraft superfisherman center console, built 1986, bought lightly used. Had it for 6-8 years. I loved it, used it hard, but it was NOT a well built boat by any stretch. It eventually fell apart from rot in the deck and transom (the center console also tore free once running at night to Nantucket). Sank because of the notorious plexiglas access plate in the splashwell. Cracked my hull once hauling it as well. It was powered with an Ocean Pro 150 hp engine and would do 25-27 kts tops, cruised closer to 21 -22 (with the right prop). Not real fuel efficent. Had a 75 gallon fuel tank and I often burned 30+ gallons in a day's fishing (60-75 nautical miles) Needed a low pitch prop to avoid cavitation in rough seas. Hard for me to believe guys run their's with 115's. I suspect many of those are actually old 19 footers which also exist. Mine needed trim tabs big time though I never put them on. It was a decent sea boat, but much less so than the heavier 21 ft Regulator I replaced it with (which is a boxier, uglier but higher freeboard affair). Not real comfortable once it blew more than 15 Kts where I fish (vineyard sound). Wasn't very dry either (although tabs would've helped) Very tippy boat, two people in the same spot roll it way over and two in the stern brought water in the scuppers. I had to move the batteries out of the stern and into the console just so I could stand back there myself. Maybe the older pre 73 boats were better, but most of them must have serious rot issues. There is a lot of info on the net about rebuilding them, but if you go that route I'd look for an old heavier built one. All that said, it was a great one man fishing design and, even though I own a much better boat now, I miss it.

[JohnR]

Numbskull - that was one of the later owners, CSY, though they were well regarded too. The Potter hulls, 68 to 79, and the more rare Mosely hulls, pre 68, are typically the more sought after. Of course they all need work now that they are old and they can all build a poor boat from time to time.

Exhibit A - the 1999 or so 25 seacrafts which nearly shake a part, voids in the glass, lack of stringers extending all the way back. In fact, by your description, it sounded like a Tracker Seacraft 25

[capesams]

up to the year 83 or 85 was the last year for the good hull's..co. got sold and they went down the tube's.

[Rip Runner]

85 was the last year of the good hulls post Potter and Pre tracker.

[Roger]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

I prefer the new hulls as 1) they have no wood in them and 2) they are lighter 3) the resins today are better in seawater. Back in the 70's they used wood for various structual elements and this basically was a bad idea and most of them eventually rotted.

That's basically true. If someone gets a Potter hull they should assume that they will need to redo the transom and floor. However they are the only places that there is wood. The stringers are boxed fiberglass.

The newer boats are better in overall design in many ways as you've pointed out. The big problem is inconsistent/poor quality. The worse problem is stringers coming loose from the hull. That just doesn't seem to happen with the Potter hulls.