Nomad Willy
Guru
HaHa ya got the message Codger.
Go easy on the old horse.
Go easy on the old horse.
Seriously, (for a moment), what is the origin of the FB? .
Seriously, (for a moment), what is the origin of the FB? My suspicion is it came into broader use for game fishing boats, for all round visibility in maneuvers and better forward visibility looking for possible prey. Did Hemingway`s boats have FBs?
Sailing ships had high observation points, the "crows nest" as it was called, early steamships had a semi enclosed post on the mast, both accessible by climbing.
I`m happy without one. My first power boat had a classic FB deck,ladder access,fenced, but no helm fitted. The IG has a proper FB with helm we rarely use it. If I swap the IG for something else, I won`t be concerned whether there is a FB, but would not rule out a boat with FB if the boat is otherwise good, though I`d miss the easy place for panels.
its OK Ted.....came upon the same during my search...
Neither are cabins, but I'm not hearing much comment on that weight and windage. Maybe you could convert Willy to center console to get even closer to the waterline. Even on smaller boats, whether a fly bridge may be an issue might depend on how aloft it actually is. If you can stand in the cockpit and look above the FB floor, that's not stretching the aloft factor much at all. And, a simple front shell and a few single seats like on a Camano 31 Troll isn't adding much for either weight or windage. Sure, many are higher and/or heavier, but they are not all to the same degree. Speaking of unnecessary windage effects, putting the kayaks or dinghy on top of Willy probably doesn't help with that either, yet that seems acceptable to you. The term double standard comes to my mind. It does make me think, though, but probably not entirely in the way you intended.Fly bridges aren't ideal from a standpoint of CG and windage.
I often wonder how his dog is doing.
Fly bridges aren't ideal from a standpoint of CG and windage. But the critique is fly stuff unless the boat is too small. And many exist. But many may think twice before putting an OB and battery on the FB and then have a bunch of people up there. That's what I like to do most ... get people thinking.
Didn't get me thinking much. I reckon if the NA has done his job and designed a flybridge (or not) into the boat from the git-go, no problem. "Features" (potentially higher windage, etc.) being different from "problems."
That only took me about a nano-second worth of thought; took longer to type.
-Chris
Boats are by definition purpose built things. A boat not designed well for its particular purpose is poorer boat than one that is.
Neither are cabins, but I'm not hearing much comment on that weight and windage. Maybe you could convert Willy to center console to get even closer to the waterline. Even on smaller boats, whether a fly bridge may be an issue might depend on how aloft it actually is. If you can stand in the cockpit and look above the FB floor, that's not stretching the aloft factor much at all. And, a simple front shell and a few single seats like on a Camano 31 Troll isn't adding much for either weight or windage. Sure, many are higher and/or heavier, but they are not all to the same degree. Speaking of unnecessary windage effects, putting the kayaks or dinghy on top of Willy probably doesn't help with that either, yet that seems acceptable to you. The term double standard comes to my mind. It does make me think, though, but probably not entirely in the way you intended.
Cheers!
Tim
What defines necessity of purpose that might exclude FB or tuna towers, but not cabins? Either can be necessary, though obviously not for the same purpose.the necessity of cabins is way different than a FB.
Some certainly appear ungainly. What defines too large for the purpose set by the NA? The cabin of a dock queen might might be too large for use as a coastal cruiser and also too small for use as a house boat. As a dock queen, it might be perfect.It could be said that many cabins are too large though
Why is a dink acceptable for needed windage, but not an FB? If the dink were larger as many are, would it still be acceptable?Good point about the dink too. Well it would be a good point except I actually need some windage high as an alternative to stabilizers
But if the ballance of plusses and minuses are objectively evaluated and it comes out positive then all is well and whatever the issue can then be fully accepted until new information becomes available.
I remember it. I'm in Anacortes and took pictures of it. From what I recall, removing the FB is not likely to have kept it upright given the other issues with implementing that design. Are you asserting/implying that removing only the FB would have sufficiently corrected those issues?But because a NA designed a boat does not mean it's unquestionable. Remember the big yacht that capsized at launch not long ago?
I would not add an FB to a boat not designed for it, but the presence is not necessarily a negative either. Sometimes, it is there for a specific purpose as defined by the NA. Imagine trying to fish tuna without being able to look down on the cockpit and at the action behind the boat. How would Willy function as a tuna boat? Of course, it is easy to second guess anyone based on our own personal biases. That should not negate the valid purposes of others, whether we agree with them or not.I would'nt put a FB on any boat that I can think of.
OK,
If you guys can't see the disadvantage in adding considerable weight and windage aloft on an already heavy trawler type boat .... I'm out.
Hey, I am just a lowly ice cream boat owner....to the tune of 2500 miles cruise every year....with flying bridge .....and have managed not to roll over.Reread post #185.....
I don't want to bait or fight anyone. I do wish to clarify some claims that have been made to see whether they actually are valid or are just an expression of personal preference. Not having the experience myself, how else would I learn other than by asking questions?OK I see you all just want to bait me and fight.