Boat Builder Central - Builder Forums

This week-end, I sketched what we discussed in the Texas Flats Boat thread.
Here is what came out of it:


This is a first sketch and a lot can change during the design but the basic idea is there: an inverted vee hull for fishing the flats. To stay within the style of the TX boats, I did put the sheer relatively low but I can still go lower.
Right now, she is around 18' by 8+' wide.



She has a flat back not only because that's how sleds work but it increases buoyancy right where we need it, to support engine weight.



The bow is far from being flat. The inverted vee not only provides a smooth ride cat style because of the fine hull bows but, in this case, we trap the air under the hull and that provides lift, greatly reducing the running while increasing speed. Sleds have the highest power to speed ratios.
I expect this hull to go 35 mph with a 50 HP.



The concept is easy to understand from this last picture. Hundreds if not thousands of Sea Sleds were build.
Let's not go in the details at this point: the interior layout, console etc. are details. I want to know if it is worth designing and if yes, in what size, how about freeboard and discuss other hull design related points.
My sled hull is different from the Hickmans sled mostly because of the slanted chines. This should eliminate chine tripping and makes the entry even finer.

Suggestions are welcome.

Jac,

I am really excited about this design...and the concept...but fear that it may not be the boat for me...

I need a boat for Lake Ontario...I know this hull is designed for the flats but can you please indicate how it would compare to an OB19

For :
Running 2' - 4' chops...?
I know it will run wet....but will it be smoother and more stable...?
Requires less power, provides more deck space...?

Thanks...

This is a low profile and unusually wide sled but most Sea Sleds are narrower and have much more freeboard.
We may design such a sled if this one meets some success.
See this web page about an offshore sled:
http://easyreader.hermosawave.net/news2 ... intage.asp

I provided sketches to this builder but declined to design a complete set of plans. I may change my mind about it.

Compared to a moderate vee hull like the OB19, in a 2 to 4' chop, a sled should run faster and smoother. Or same speed with less HP, around 25% less. That is documented fact, see the old Skene's books and the Crouch factor for sleds.
It will sometimes "sneeze". That means that sprays may come back from under the foredeck but I have ideas on how to handle that.
The hull will be slightly more complicated to build and cost a little bit more. It is a more complicated structure.
It will be more stable.
If there is interest for offshore sleds, let's discuss that in separate threads and reserve this one to the Texas flats version.

Jac,

If I am reading you correctly (i.e. other than the sneeze issue) this boat is just as good or better than the OB19 for Lake Ontario...

Then put my name down for one set please....!

Thanks

Baba.

Intresting hull. I had followed the links posted for the sleds, but it it still not quite what I was expecting. I like the angled chine, it gives the bow an agressive wave eating look. However, I was expecting a little V (inverted) in the stern - maybe 2-4" peak in the transom that would act as a tunnel of sorts. Shallow water launching, this boat would have no advantage over a flatbottom johnboat.

Also, How tall is the tunnel/V amidship? Would you have to run the boat bow down to get a smooth ride? Or will it ride best level?

Overall, I like it, but I still want to build a C17/19 first. I do like this boat over the PH boat, but I often like things just because they are diffrent.

Cool boat.

Jerry

Would you consider a higher freeboard version with perhaps a small cabin in the style of say a CX19. I am looking hard at the CX as a trolling platform for Lake Michigan, and was hoping this may work even better as it may allow a little additional cabin space that may make it more family friendly and an easier sell to the one who controlls the budget.

Please let's focus on the flats boat version for now.
If you want to discuss other types of sled hulls, please start a different thread.

Like Jerry, I like it but was expecting a tunnel of some sorts at the transom. I think this would be a great boat, but will not address on of the key elements of launching in shallow water.

If the inverted vee was carried to the transom to some degree, what is you opinion of that? Or if it was designed as shown, what if I put the XF-20/PH-15 tunnel in this boat?

What I'm saying is that to appeal to the Texas crowd it is going to need a tunnel or to carry the inverted vee all the way to the transom.

I would be interested in a set of these plans. I'm not sure I'd build it anytime soon as I don't have the room or need to now. I do still like the PH-22 with a pocket though as my next build if I can get the room.

As far as the deck goes, I'd like to build it more along the Florida style of flats boats. But lets get the hull defined before everyone puts in their nickel on the deck.

Jacques, thanks for taking our idea and coming up with something. That says a lot...

Tim

I like it, put me in for the plans and fiberglass kit.

I presume the two vees pushing the water to the middle will help lift the stern when taking off in shallow water???

How much freeboard is showing in your sketchs?

On the subject of size...plz don't make it any bigger than 18X8, I don't have enough building space for a larger boat....

Cool design... The biggest question I have is about the draft while running. Would the flat bottom at the stern along with a motor set back allow you to run shallow enough to skip the "tunnel". I like the the smaller engine requirement as that reduces prop diameter hopefully reducing running draft by an inch or so.

I fish the Texas coast and resting draft for me really is not the big problem. As you may have guessed from my earlier comments. The big issue is the ability to get past some short very shallow places to get to the inner bays. Running depth is the biggest limiting factor to the usability of my Phantom.

It has been a while since I built my PH 18... this could be the boat that got me to build again.

CaryB

Looks good. Nice compiment to the GF18 with its hard poundng ride. Love the 8' beam(!), but a tunnel option should be included. Maybe two optoins: low and high freeboard? My wife was originally scared of the low freeboard of the GF18 with having kids on board.

Jason

I too like the idea of this hull as I have been considering a GF18. The smoother ride is a huge plus as Mobile Bay can get ugly. I would like to have some freeboard even if it is an option b/c I want to be able to use it as a family/fishing boat. I don't need the tunnel as I think what you said about the lift formed by the hulls will be enough but I am also not trying to get on plane in inches of water. Good flexibility in the deck layout would be nice, too.

Daniel

A tunnel in a sea sled will not work.
Some sleds have a little bit negative deadrise at the transom. This means that the transom is not flat, there is still around 3 or 4 degrees of tunnel left. It will not make a big difference in take-off draft, maybe 1/2" but will increase static draft and reduce the lifting effect of the air cushion.
The reason cats are popular in TX is that while their static draft is more than a monohull, their props located between the hulls are higher.
There is a price to pay in performance: cavitation.
I could design a cat with less cavitation but the hulls would have to be deeper.

So Jac,

How close are we on making the decision to "Design or not to Design"...?Sounds to me like you have a more general audiance than then just the Tx guys...

I'll wait a couple of days, not everybody checks this forum everyday.

I am certain that the sled will offer a better ride than any other TX flats boat and considering the distances they have to cover, it is a major advantage.
The sled will float in 5 or 6" of water and once on plane, skim on the surface better than a cat.
For taking off and running in shallow waters. nothing can beat our XF20 because of the tunnel lifting the water but the ride in a chop is rough. The PH15 or PH16/18 with tunnels are good compromise but the TX fisherman are not convinced.

Let's keep the theory in mind, I explained the tunnel theory here:
http://boatplans-online.com/studyplans/PH15_study.htm

I like it. A 20'-21' might be better for the chop we get and more casting room but I could live with an 18'. My main concern like Cary is running depth. Does the inverted V provide enough lift to eliminate the need for a tunnel. I think the limiting factor is how shallow you can run the prop and skeg. A 13" prop is not going to run in 12" of water too well w/o some assist. Would we need some kind of chopper prop like a dick boat to run prop shallow enough ? Maybe a bracket to get the motor back in the hump behind the boat ?

To get on plane in a vee hull or flat bottom, the cavitation plate has to be flush with the hull bottom. This means draft at take off is hull draft plus lower unit. Using a value of 13" for the lower unit, this means 18".
In a cat, the plate is at water level, between the hull. This means it is higher but still at the depth of the lower unit: 13" but as soon as the hulls moves, it begins to look like washing machine between the hulls, lots of turbulence. Often, one has to lower the engine to get on plane and we loose that small benefit.
A cat hull will also have more draft, let's say 10" instead of 5.
A tunnel boat goes around that problem, the plate is flush with the tunnel ceiling and that gives us the same take off depth than a cat but with less static draft and less turbulence = better running.
Let's say it again: a tunnel will not work in an inverted vee.
That will put it's take off draft at 18" too.

Now, running, the tunnel is the best because we can lift the plate in the hump. That is how our XF20 and PH15 run in 3 " of water: we lift the water.
Behind a vee hull, you still have a hump and with a jack plate and good set back, you can run the the PH16 in 12".
With a cat, it gets worse. The water is so turbulent that one has to lower the engine to reduce cavitation.
Bottom line:
1. static draft (poling): our wide flats boats are unbeatable with their large waterplane, cats are twice as deep!
2. running draft: again, our flats boats especially the ones with tunnels are the best, cats are the worse.
3. take off depth: cats and our tunnel boats are equal, regular vees are the deepest, the inverted vee isn't that bad because it has no deadrise.
4. running qualities: the inverted vee (sled) will be the best followed closely by regular vee hulls. Tunnels sometimes cavitate, cats are the worst.
5. best ride in a chop: cats do it well but the inverted vee will the best, it lifts and runs on an air cushion. Regular vees are fine, flat bottoms like GF18 and XF20 pound to death.

There you have it. Now pick the compromise you want but do not ask for the impossible.

It seems a lot of concern is being placed on getting up on plane in really skinny water, and then running in it, especially when the tide runs out. Depending on where you are in TX, you have pretty good odds of chopping up oyster shell and such with the prop and skeg if you run too shallow without a tunnel or pocket, but if you fish in 18-36" flats, this boat would be fine..and these are what I would call wading depth. There's no need to run way up in the shallows if you aren't going to fish from the boat in water that shallow. I think the concern is coming off plane in a foot of water, and then getting stuck out there having to push the boat along until you stumble across a cut or channel to get back up on plane in.

If you regularly fish flats 12" or less, then you pretty much have to go with a flat bottomed tunnel hull, and just suck it up on the pounding. There are already 2 hulls for that: PH15 and XF20. If you run up in 2-3 feet of water, and then jump out and wade, you have those options, plus the PH series and this proposed design as well.

I fish the north half of the coast, and the bays I run up into are all over 2 feet deep, or have channels that can be followed if you have the skill, so the extremely shallow draft is not an issue. On the lower coast, you can potentially get long stretches of shallower water, so a tunnel may be necessary. If this new design can get up in 18" of water and run in 12-16 inches, it could still be a good compromise, just don't take it way up along the grass where you know it's 6 inches deep and loaded with oyster shell.

I don't know who that "guest" is but what he writes makes sense.

jacquesmm wrote: Bottom line:
1. static draft (poling): our wide flats boats are unbeatable with their large waterplane, cats are twice as deep!
2. running draft: again, our flats boats especially the ones with tunnels are the best, cats are the worse.
3. take off depth: cats and our tunnel boats are equal, regular vees are the deepest, the inverted vee isn't that bad because it has no deadrise.
4. running qualities: the inverted vee (sled) will be the best followed closely by regular vee hulls. Tunnels sometimes cavitate, cats are the worst.
5. best ride in a chop: cats do it well but the inverted vee will the best, it lifts and runs on an air cushion. Regular vees are fine, flat bottoms like GF18 and XF20 pound to death.

There you have it. Now pick the compromise you want but do not ask for the impossible.

for me,
2,3,5,4,1.

interesting design. I've looked at the GF18 for use in Arizona lakes. The OB19 was right up there as well. Probably be a couple years before I can build a boat but this design looks very interesting. How would this perform pulling a skier?

No problem pulling a skier. It will do that at least as well as another boat.

how would the costs compare to something like the ob19. I know this is in the rough idea stage so I'm just looking for a rough idea.

With the reduced HP requirements it could make a more affordable boat.

Doug wrote:I like it. A 20'-21' might be better for the chop we get and more casting room but I could live with an 18'.

I'm with Doug, I prefer a 21' model, but an 18' will do

markhoutx wrote:

Doug wrote:I like it. A 20'-21' might be better for the chop we get and more casting room but I could live with an 18'.

I with Doug, I prefer a 21' model, but an 18' will do

I would agree, a 18 footer would get a little crowded

Dave

Jacques, could you address these prior questions??

Doug wrote:Does the inverted V provide enough lift to eliminate the need for a tunnel?
Would we need some kind of chopper prop like a dick boat to run prop shallow enough ?
Maybe a bracket to get the motor back in the hump behind the boat ?

markhoutx wrote:I presume the two vees pushing the water to the middle will help lift the stern when taking off in shallow water???

How much freeboard is showing in your sketchs?

markhoutx wrote:Jacques, could you address these prior questions??

Does the inverted V provide enough lift to eliminate the need for a tunnel?

Need for a tunnel? A flats boat does not "need" a tunnel and it's a mute point, we can't add tunnel to something that already is some kind of tunnel.

Would we need some kind of chopper prop like a dick boat to run prop shallow enough ?

A surface piercing prop would certainly be a benefit, it would reduce draft dramatically and it is recognized as one the best props for high speed sleds.

Maybe a bracket to get the motor back in the hump behind the boat ?

No, the hump will be small and too far way. A sled flattens the water behind the boat.

markhoutx wrote:I presume the two vees pushing the water to the middle will help lift the stern when taking off in shallow water???

Yes, the whole boat lifts without trim change

How much freeboard is showing in your sketchs?

I didn't measure, I can make it lower or higher. This is just a concept sketch, I didn't look at layout and other features.

is this the style of hull we are talking about?



Dave

I dont think thats an inverted V/sled - looks like a cat

joel

I can't tell without seeing the transom but as Joel wrote, that looks more like a cat.

I will design it but:
- I'll keep the plans very simple until somebody commits to build it
- it is an experimental boat and as such, the builder should expect to have to tinker a lot with engine height
- I will give a full refund of the cost of the plans to the first builder who reports on testing mainly because I want to know what the ideal engine height will be.
- we may give a professional discount on supplies to a builder, preferably local, willing to build a first boat and report on performance.

Hundreds of sea sleds were built and worked out well but there is very little documentation to go by.

One word of caution: sea sleds are very fast boats and if excessive power is used, they can become airborne. There will be a warning about that attached to the purchase of the plans.

See the next post for specifications.

WIP (Work In Progress) info.
As sketched now, the TX Sled is 18' long by 8' wide. The hull depth if 22" and that will give a freeboard of around 16". Cockpit depth is 13".
Hull weight will be around 800 lbs, recommended HP around 40HP for speeds up to 35 mph.
I am working on surface developability but by tomorrow AM, final size, freeboard and cockpit depth set must be defined.

jacquesmm wrote:.....One word of caution: sea sleds are very fast boats and if excessive power is used, they can become airborne.......

YEAH.....thats my boat....Kinda like poping a wheelly on my bandit..(just a flick of the wrist...no clutching)

jacquesmm wrote: recommended HP around 40HP for speeds up to 35 mph.

Only 40 HP to move an 18' boat at 35 mph is pretty impressive (to me, at least).

jacquesmm wrote: One word of caution: sea sleds are very fast boats and if excessive power is used, they can become airborne. There will be a warning about that attached to the purchase of the plans.

Just think if you had on of the recalled kite tubes and went real fast in the sled....which one would fly higher??

jacquesmm wrote:WIP (Work In Progress) info.
As sketched now, the TX Sled is 18' long by 8' wide. The hull depth if 22" and that will give a freeboard of around 16". Cockpit depth is 13".
Hull weight will be around 800 lbs, recommended HP around 40HP for speeds up to 35 mph.
I am working on surface developability but by tomorrow AM, final size, freeboard and cockpit depth set must be defined.

Jacques,

I'll commit to a set of plans and a fiberglass/epoxy kit as soon as possible - 18' by 8' is fine.

I measured a friend's Shoal Water and another friend's Trans Cat and I would rather see ONLY 12" of freeboard and 6 1/2" of cockpit depth with the appropriate corresponding hull depth. This will cut the windage profile and weight; and approximate these 2 boats' dimensions which I like. Of course, this low freeboad requires instructions for full flotation foam that's necessary for these Texas flats designs.

I am willing to test and report back on the new boat. I am a catastrophe insurance adjuster racing the wind, so time is of the essence in me building this boat.

Mark

Jacques

I would also commit to a set of plans. I am finishing a new garage and was going to start a OD18 but this seems much more interesting. Not scared of a little tinkering, either. I will trust your design instinct as I am not such a hard core flats fisherman. I just appreciate the attributes these boats have and am really excited to have one with a better ride!

Daniel

markhoutx wrote:
I'll commit to a set of plans and a fiberglass/epoxy kit as soon as possible - 18' by 8' is fine.

I measured a friend's Shoal Water and another friend's Trans Cat and I would rather see ONLY 12" of freeboard and 6 1/2" of cockpit depth with the appropriate corresponding hull depth. This will cut the windage profile and weight; and approximate these 2 boats' dimensions which I like. Of course, this low freeboad requires instructions for full flotation foam that's necessary for these Texas flats designs.

OK then. Since you are clear about what you want, I'll do it your way.
That's very little freeboard but I'll get as close as possible.
We will show foam on the plans, it's a must for such a low boat.

jacquesmm wrote:...

OK then. Since you are clear about what you want, I'll do it your way.
That's very little freeboard but I'll get as close as possible.
We will show foam on the plans, it's a must for such a low boat.

I understand that this design is specifically to address a niche...which is the Texas Style boat...but 6.5" of Cockpit depth seems a little too scary on Lake Ontario...

Jac, would you hesitate from recommending this boat instead of an OB19 for my use (interms of safety and comfort)...?

i.e. Water skiing, fishing, family outings on the great lakes (2-4 foot chops), 6 passengers ..? Its almost like a RIB...!

This is going to be another extreme flats boat specifically for Texas and similar shallow waters. NOT recommended for Lake Ontario.
If the plans sell, we will design another version with normal freeboard for general use.

jacquesmm wrote:

markhoutx wrote:
I'll commit to a set of plans and a fiberglass/epoxy kit as soon as possible - 18' by 8' is fine.

I measured a friend's Shoal Water and another friend's Trans Cat and I would rather see ONLY 12" of freeboard and 6 1/2" of cockpit depth with the appropriate corresponding hull depth. This will cut the windage profile and weight; and approximate these 2 boats' dimensions which I like. Of course, this low freeboad requires instructions for full flotation foam that's necessary for these Texas flats designs.

OK then. Since you are clear about what you want, I'll do it your way.
That's very little freeboard but I'll get as close as possible.
We will show foam on the plans, it's a must for such a low boat.

Jacques - If I can make a point - could you please raise the sole 3"-5" Above where you would normally place it? Most all of the extremly low profile boats I can think of have the sole that is about 6"or so above the DWL. With the extra low freeboard, I think we could agree that the extra floatation would be justified.

Just a thought.

Jerry-rigged wrote: Jacques - If I can make a point - could you please raise the sole 3"-5" Above where you would normally place it? Most all of the extremly low profile boats I can think of have the sole that is about 6"or so about (I believe Jerry meant ABOVE) the DWL. With the extra low freeboard, I think we could agree that the extra floatation would be justified.

Just a thought.

Good point Jerry, that's why the cockpit depth is so shallow.

Raising the sole will give more volume for storage or flotation foam, but assuming the boat is already unsinkable with a sole 2" above DWl, what does the loss of cockpit depth give you? I guess I dont understand the benefit

shine wrote:Raising the sole will give more volume for storage or flotation foam, but assuming the boat is already unsinkable with a sole 2" above DWl, what does the loss of cockpit depth give you? I guess I dont understand the benefit

Good question. It gives additional visibility like a raised deck or driving platform and it also gives a self bailing hull beyond that 2 inches. As I'm sure your aware many production flats boats claim to be self bailing, but as soon as you load them up (and I don't mean overloaded) you're standing in water that came in through the scupppers.

Of course, I am just presenting ideas, I know Jacques and you as the trained professionals will make the appropriate compromises.

My PH16 is self bailing with 800 pounds of people on board Thats more than the boat weighs.

Im sure you could raise the sole if you want. It might mean another sheet of plywood due to the larger frames and higher stringers.

With 12" freeboard and 6" cockpit depth, the sole is 6" above the DWL.

jacquesmm wrote:With 12" freeboard and 6" cockpit depth, the sole is 6" above the DWL.

LOL Sometimes it is the simple math that gets me...


Jerry

Just one example of a raised console, very common on Texas Flats boats. This is the Skinny Skooter, 14.5'.

My preference would be for something a bit longer...say 22' but might consider the shorter. I am very interested to see the performance of this boat. MarkHou...am just up the road from you in Friendswood, so will have to drop by if you get one started.

I understand that this boat should be able to run shallow because of the lift effect, but what is the expect depth needed for takeoff? Seems like with the flat transom and no tunnel that it will need quite a bit of depth still at start. What is the expected draft at rest?

I vote for the super low sheer as Mark requested as well..

See my previous posts where we discussed running draft, take off draft etc.

To Markhoutx and Daniel H., the ones who committed to build the boat.
You can decide how she will look.
I did put the freeboard and sole where you asked. The hull is 100% finished and I did some math.
At the designed waterline of 6" draft, she displaces 2,400 lbs! That's enormous. The hull will weigh less than 1,000 lbs.
Questions: I would leave the sole where it is, at 6" draft. You will not take water through the scuppers until you get to 2,400 lbs. Even then, she is self bailing and filled with foam but, if you want, I can raise the sole 1". The PPI is 490 lbs. This would put the flooding weight at 2,900 lbs. I don't think it is necessary, I prefer to leave the sole at 6" draft, 6" cockpit depth in the middle.
The transom takes a 20" shaft but it's easy to bring it down to 15".
Second question: how about and aft deck and foredeck? I am thinking of a foredeck shorter than on my original sketch to maximize the cockpit space. The forward deck can end either at 3' from the bow or at 6'. I prefer 3'.
The aft deck is 24" from transom.
Last question: do you want gunnels (gunwales)?
The boat does not need them structurally but I can add them, like 6 to 8" wide. It gives you something to step on instead of stepping over when you go in and out of the boat.
I gave a little camber to the aft and foredeck, it's prettier and just as easy to build. I can give the same angle to the gunwales to drain.
If you have any suggestions, post here.

jacquesmm wrote:To Markhoutx and Daniel H., the ones who committed to build the boat.
You can decide how she will look.
I did put the freeboard and sole where you asked. The hull is 100% finished and I did some math.
At the designed waterline of 6" draft, she displaces 2,400 lbs! That's enormous. The hull will weigh less than 1,000 lbs.
Questions: I would leave the sole where it is, at 6" draft. You will not take water through the scuppers until you get to 2,400 lbs. Even then, she is self bailing and filled with foam but, if you want, I can raise the sole 1". The PPI is 490 lbs. This would put the flooding weight at 2,900 lbs. I don't think it is necessary, I prefer to leave the sole at 6" draft, 6" cockpit depth in the middle.
The transom takes a 20" shaft but it's easy to bring it down to 15".
Second question: how about and aft deck and foredeck? I am thinking of a foredeck shorter than on my original sketch to maximize the cockpit space. The forward deck can end either at 3' from the bow or at 6'. I prefer 3'.
The aft deck is 24" from transom.
Last question: do you want gunnels (gunwales)?
The boat does not need them structurally but I can add them, like 6 to 8" wide. It gives you something to step on instead of stepping over when you go in and out of the boat.
I gave a little camber to the aft and foredeck, it's prettier and just as easy to build. I can give the same angle to the gunwales to drain.
If you have any suggestions, post here.

Jacques,

The sole is fine where you have it.

I would prefer 3' aft deck and 4' to 5' foredeck, but since that's not a choice you offered, I would want the 6' foredeck. We often fish 2 people from the foredeck.

Transom for 20" shaft is perfect.

I vote for 8" gunnels.

Mark

JACQUES

I like the wide gunnels, too. This boat is plenty wide for them to look good in scale and the 8" width would be great for walking. I like the long foredeck. Go for the 6'. I extended the foredeck on my GV13 back to the next bulkhead and have never regretted it. It's a great casting platform and my wife likes to lay out there, too. Can't wait to have some plans to look at. BTW, I am still very interested in a deeper boat with this bottom. I would build this first just to be sure, though.

Daniel

I'm glad to see that you agree. The foredeck will be around 6' and the gunwales 8".

How will this boat handle on the trolling motor?

I'm still thinking about building it too, but like Mark I would like to see more rear deck. I've fished on a few Cajun brand boats that had a real short rear deck and it was uncomfortable.

Considering that the cockpit is only 6" deep, the size of the decks doesn't matter much. We must leave enough room for the console and 24" is about the best I can do there.

Now, that boat's layout will be very very easy to customize: you can adjust the size of the deck to what you want and even build her flush deck.

Thanks for the quick reply today J.

How about the trolling motor question? Will it handle well being the front end is a cat?

Thanks,
Tim

Well, I see this is a done deal, it sounds great . I've been spending time with my son in Alabama for a week so I'll chime in now. I will order the plans when you finish them but might be a few months before the start have you come up with a price yet? Jaques, the design looks like there will be little if any "drop" in the stern when taking off like some other designs, what do you think? With the almost flat bottom in the stern how does it handle the chop so well? When you said 24" for the center console do you mean that there is only 24" between the decks?

eb13 wrote: When you said 24" for the center console do you mean that there is only 24" between the decks?

EB,

Jacques is referencing his earlier statement that the aft deck is 24", he is not stating that the console is 24".

Mark

Mark, when you get started let me know if you need any help and I'll swing by and jump in with ya.

eb13 wrote:Mark, when you get started let me know if you need any help and I'll swing by and jump in with ya.

Cool, I may need the help.

peeshnuck wrote:...MarkHou...am just up the road from you in Friendswood, so will have to drop by if you get one started....

Sure, anytime.

You voted and now you have it:

a view from under the hull showing the inverted vee and the"anti-sneeze device":

and from the stern: no deadrise for maximum lift:


The design is complete.
I show two decks, one with a large cockpit as above and one with a small cockpit, large deck. All dimensions will be on the plans. It is very easy to customize the layout and deck plan.
As discussed, around 12" freeboard, 5" draft at DWL, 6" cockpit depth etc. see my previous post, we are right on target.
Construction will be a little more complex than a plain vee hull because we handle 6 panels but there is nothing more complicated, just a little bit more taping.
The hull is assembled around 3 stringers and a few frames. There is a center stringer and two sides stringers. Each stringer acts like a keel.
The side stringers are not parallel but I show notches and there is no way to go wrong with alignment and assembly.
The deck has a very small camber, just enough to drain and look nice.
Materials as usual but for boat, foam is not an option, it's a must for stiffness.
I do not plan any elaborate web page or CAD drawings, all will be clean and simple but the first builders will receive very personalized support in exchange of detailed feedback.

She's a beauty!

When will the plans hit the Plans/Order Page?

Jaques, You have hit the mark! Thanks, Ed

I am really excited Jacques!!! Can't wait to have some plans. Thanks again for always coming through with such great designs.

Again, thank you
Daniel Huckleberry

Nice flag

Nice boat too.

If you are not going to put together a web page, you mind saying how much for a copy of the plans?

Jerry

I need around 5 days to do the drafting but my children want to go to Orlando's parks before school starts again and I will be out of the office half of next week. Plans should be ready around August 10.

Jerry, Are you thinking about a build of it too? Also do you fly fish? If so I'm getting into that and need some instructions. Email me and we'll have to hook up, I can't find youy address, Ed

ed,
I used to work and give fly casting lessons at a couple of fly shops in Houston. If you've never fly casted before I definitely recommend at least one lesson with a pro. I'll give you a couple of names if you like, just let me know. BTW, their rates are usually $50-$75 a lesson, which is at least one hour.
mike

That is one good looking boat..Should be a winner here for the Texas coast..

I will be watching this one closely..

Will send you an e-mail, EB13

Jerry

I am progressing with the design work, plywood BOM:
6 mm: 8 sheets
10 mm: 8 sheets.
There is more hull surface and that uses a lot of plywood plus, it has to be stiffer than other boats and I need 2 sheets of 3/8 just for the side stringers!!!

I just checked out this thread. It does look like a great little boat but for TX flats fishing and access I find this little Cat hard to beat. Check out the video to see how shallow this thing can take off and run in. I find it hard to believe.....

http://www.flatscat.com/

It's a good boat but I'll stick with Jaque's Texas bay sled! When those of us that are going to build it finish them I think there will be some buzz about them around here. Also Jaques, You said 10mm, 9mm is 3/8" so is that what you meant?

Are the Texas Sled plans still on track for an Aug. 10th debut?

Hey Mark,

How much time have you given yourself to built the Tx Sled...? Its only after you are able to test it...will Jac consider my higher freeboard version...

markhoutx wrote:

eb13 wrote:Mark, when you get started let me know if you need any help and I'll swing by and jump in with ya.

Cool, I may need the help.

peeshnuck wrote:...MarkHou...am just up the road from you in Friendswood, so will have to drop by if you get one started....

Sure, anytime.

Yea, me too. If you need a hand, drop me an e-mail. If nothing else, I will show up for the flip, even if you don't need the help...
(I am right down the road in Alvin)

Jerry

markhoutx wrote:Are the Texas Sled plans still on track for an Aug. 10th debut?

I took a short vacation, came back yesterday and yes, the plans should be ready.
In fact, they are ready, what takes time is building notes, BOM, kit, web pages etc.

baba101 wrote:Hey Mark,

How much time have you given yourself to built the Tx Sled...?

Plan to start it immediately after plans and kit arrive and fiinish as fast as possible. I'm a castastrophe insurance adjuster off work right now, until the next hurricane or other castastrophe. So, I might get started then have to leave it lay if a storm hits.

Any news on when the plans will be available?

The plans are ready, I have to write the web page, calculate the kits etc.
A few more days.

This is posted to a Yahoo group,, sea sled boats, with pictures of it running:

"Finally, I made time this weekend to launch my 1958 sea sled into
the torquoise waters of Lake Crescent, Port Angeles, WA. I tried to
restore it to as close to original power, opting for a 50 hp Honda.
One of the previous owners had replaced the original outboard
configuration to a 120 hp inboard & OMC outdrive, adding 400 lbs to
the boat.

The 48 year old fiberglass held up well in the 1' chop. The hull
flexed but did not break! We gps'ed her at 32 mph with an 11" x 11"
3 blade propeller, 650 lbs of gear, people, & fuel. I set the 20"
long shaft outboard in a 17" transom, dropping the motor 3" deeper
than typical for a vee hull. I noticed no ventilation to full RPM.
Cornering, the sea sled banks to the inside of the turn, just as a
vee hull. I ran with her trimmed down, so she rode level. I
understood from my readings that sea sleds do not like to run bow
high, and found that I agreed. I was not impressed with the wake we
threw out. I had been under the impression that this hull would run
with nearly no wake. However, it was creating almost as much wake
as my other boat, a 19' George Calkins Bartender. We only ran her
for 3 hours, so these are just my initial impressions. I will post
the pictures when I have them developed.

Cheers,
John Fleming"

John,

Did you notice any differences between the hull design of the Tx Sled and your sea sled...

Is the bottom of the transorm flat...? or does the inverted V continue all the way.

Baba

I will buy these plans when they become available.

THINK ':help:'

'8O'

building notes, BOM, kit, web pages
building notes, BOM, kit, web pages
building notes, BOM, kit, web pages
building notes, BOM, kit, web pages
building notes, BOM, kit, web pages

BUILDING NOTES, BOM, KIT, WEB PAGES
BUILDING NOTES, BOM, KIT, WEB PAGES
BUILDING NOTES, BOM, KIT, WEB PAGES
BUILDING NOTES, BOM, KIT, WEB PAGES
BUILDING NOTES, BOM, KIT, WEB PAGES
':roll:'

I see 4 commitments to buying plans and at least one (me) to buying a kit!
':lol:'

My credit card number is BR54-9XXX-XXXX-XXXX expires 3/09

Have a peek here, a 1st draft of the study plans page:
http://boatplans-online.com/studyplans/TX18_study.htm

WOW!!!

I can't wait, Jacques! Can't you go ahead and sell us some plans! We won't tell! The boat looks great.

Daniel

Thanks Jac....Can't wait to see the Scaled Drawing...(the link on the Page is for FS14...)

How can I convience you to do a higher free board version...now...I'd like to test this thing out on Lake Ontario for you...?

I hesitate about the larger version . . .

jacquesmm wrote:I hesitate about the larger version . . .

How about I buy the drawings now and wait for the first set of trials to be completed before starting my higher freeboard version..

You post it in a special section....called "prototype under development"...

Where will the fuel tank be located on this fine specimine, and what will be the fuel capacity?

Small fuel tank, max. 20 gallons, under console. 20 gallons will be enough to run all day long with a 4 stroke 50 HP.
Optional: tank in the bow but it's tricky to fit a standard tank in that hull shape.

If you are really creative, I bet you can work in two bow tanks, though if one is empty and one is full, it would affect your balance some. console tank is going to be WAY easier.

Or add a Bench type console...(like the Boston Whaler) for a large fuel tank.


Jac do you think this hull will perform better than the Boston Whaler in 3-4' chops...?


Have you addressed this issue...?

"When rougher weather came in the fall, a flaw in the new design was revealed. When under heavy load and plowing along below planning speeds, the middle cavity in the hull forced air into the water as it rushed into the propeller. This lead to partial cavitation and rough running for the motor.

Fisher took his problem to the originator of the Sea Sled, Hickman himself, but this consultation held little hope for improvement. Hickman was certain the Sea Sled was the way to go and offered no modifications."

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/refere ... esign.html

Most of the litrature that I have read about the Seasleds...talks of bad ride quality in rough seas....I don't know however if Hickman's SeaSled had a flat bottom close to the Transorm (like the Tx Sled).


Is this Hull same as the Hickmans Design (only wider + sneeze device) or you have additional mods that no longer require the surface piercing propellors...

So....while I have had a flu and the wonderful benefits of too much time to sit and think, I have a question about the theory of the "air cushion".

I have always wondered about this with power catamarans and now the question seems relevent to these inverted Vs.

At what speed will the air space under the hull/between the sponsons have enough pressure to actually have a noticeable effect?

Does this air cushion really do anything in a boat that is moving along at 22 mph?

By the way, the TX18 looks like a very functional and interesting boat. The builder of such a boat will never get away from the inquiring minds at the ramp.

baba101 wrote:Or add a Bench type console...(like the Boston Whaler) for a large fuel tank.


Jac do you think this hull will perform better than the Boston Whaler in 3-4' chops...?

Absolutely, 100% certain.

Have you addressed this issue...?

"When rougher weather came in the fall, a flaw in the new design was revealed. When under heavy load and plowing along below planning speeds, the middle cavity in the hull forced air into the water as it rushed into the propeller. This lead to partial cavitation and rough running for the motor.

Fisher took his problem to the originator of the Sea Sled, Hickman himself, but this consultation held little hope for improvement. Hickman was certain the Sea Sled was the way to go and offered no modifications."

http://continuouswave.com/whaler/refere ... esign.html

Most of the literature that I have read about the Seasleds...talks of bad ride quality in rough seas....I don't know however if Hickman's SeaSled had a flat bottom close to the Transorm (like the Tx Sled).

Most of what I read talk about how smooth the ride is in bad weather. The boat rides on an air cushion.
You have to know the whole story to understand why a few have criticized the Hickman Sled. It is all about the Boston Whaler and the lawsuits by Hickman. Boston Whaler went to Ray Hunt to design a Hickman Sled. He did, it ran fine, the 13 footer mold was built and Hickman sued for patent infringement. Hickman was going to win and Whaler decided to modify the hull by adding a sponsoon in the middle. They didn't have the money to make a new mold. To add that thing was easy and cheap. They explained by saying that it was an improvement because the Sea Sled was rough but We all know how bad Boston Whalers ride. That is not hearsay, it's a fact.
There is another story about a test for the Navy that went bad. Hickman wanted to prove that his 45' sled could sustain 50 mph for 5 or 6 hours in more than 6 foot seas. It did but the crew was hurt. This is not particular to the Sled, I saw with my own eyes the co-pilot of an offshore racing boat finish the race with two broken legs and that was a deep vee hull. Our TX Sled is a flats boat, not an offshore racing boat. For this application, the hull shape is right. It's not ready for Cape Horn but it's OK for flats fishing.

Is this Hull same as the Hickmans Design (only wider + sneeze device) or you have additional mods that no longer require the surface piercing propellors...

90% of Hickman Sleds use regular outboards with standard props.
See some of the links in the previous messages, they show sleds of this size running fine with a regular outboard.

The Sea Sled is not a perfect hull shape but for this application, it is real good one and anyway, we have our line of vee hulls too, you choose.
If you choose the Sled, you will have to tinker with engine height unless you go for a jack plate. The study plans clearly state that.

fishingdan wrote:So....while I have had a flu and the wonderful benefits of too much time to sit and think, I have a question about the theory of the "air cushion".

I have always wondered about this with power catamarans and now the question seems relevent to these inverted Vs.

At what speed will the air space under the hull/between the sponsons have enough pressure to actually have a noticeable effect?

Does this air cushion really do anything in a boat that is moving along at 22 mph?

By the way, the TX18 looks like a very functional and interesting boat. The builder of such a boat will never get away from the inquiring minds at the ramp.

I don't know about the speed but it's clear that faster will cushion more.
The difference with a cat is that the air can't escape and must act as a shock absorber. It can only run better than a flat bottom.
There isn't muhc litterature about Sea Sleds. The father of the planing boat theory, Lindsay Lord, rates them very high in efficiency.
They were difficult to build without the materials available today.
A Sled builder must be ready for some experimenting but as you write, you would build one only to see the face of the other boaters at the ramp.

I read that article on the Boston Whaler forum and it is amazing how they avoid talking about the law suit by Hickman. They clearly say that their Hickman Sled prototype ran fine all summer but that in the fall, under some conditions, heavy load, bad weather, slow speed, air got to the prop.
I suppose they were served papers in the fall . . .

Again, I don't say that it is a perfect boat, there is no perfect boat. Because of the lack of technical data, we should consider the TX18 an experimental boat but it's an experiment based on thousands of successful Hickman Sea Sleds.

Sea Sleds failed to became popular because of Hickman's personality. He patented the design and jealously watched his patent. He gave the rights to build to only one company that went down during the Great Depression. he tried to revive it but was a control freak and nobody wanted to work with him. He died bankrupt and his patent fell in the public domain only recently.

Jac,

Assuming I buy the Tx Sled plans for now...Can I upgrade them to a higher freeboard version (if you decide to make them)....

Fow now I just want to study the plans and follow the progress of other builders....

P.s. you still need to update the Scaled Drawing Page ....it shows the FS14...

Normally we don't exchange but since this is a special situation, OK.
I want to see how builders react to this boat before designing a larger one. If I design a larger one, 23', it will have not only higher freeboard but I will recommend twin engines.

Regardless of the history, I think it is a very interesting design and I look forward to seeing the first builds. I applaud Jacques for giving this design a chance.

I wish I could build one myself, but I have too much going on at the moment. I don't know what I would do with it given the waters I seem to fish lately, but I would take to local lakes just for the reactions.

Jac, just a small note for you ...

On the TX18 page:
http://www.boatplans-online.com/studypl ... _study.htm

There is a link on this text:
Right Click to download a scaled drawing

That open this pdf:
http://www.boatplans-online.com/studyplans/FS14.pdf

Probably better if it open a TX18 pdf file

That said ... TX18 Rocks ... Hope it sell well so we
can see the 23' offshore version soon

Thanks Stefan, I'll fix that link.

While you are working on the pages Jacques, is there a view of the bottom that you can add?

There was a view of the bottom but I replaced it with a better one.
PDF file will be uploaded later today.
We are printing the first plans, some of you ordered already.
I will be in touch with each builder.

Much better

Now the bottom view is better.

I have few safety/comfort questions (I'm not building the TX sled, so I'm just wondering ).

1. Is there a change that the sled will turn airborne if gone against wind and maybe little overpowered and weight is too much in stern?

2. When weather turn rough, does slowing down help much? Slowing will mean less air under boat and thus less air cushion.

The just something I saw when I did quite long paddling trip. I saw a open cat boat (atleast I think so) which had transom almost like in the sled, the middle bottom was in water when the boat was running slow speed. I never saw such cat alive and even "usual" cat's are very rare in here. I think it was a new boat that was tested by some folks. They did some runs with the cat and in one turn the (only) outboard ventilated a lot. Basically the motor cried overrevs and the boat instantly stalled just there. The weather was calm, just few inch ripple. Such ventilation felt quite unhealthy and stopping from speed can be dangerous in heavy weather. I must say the boat didn't impress me.

I can not describe the behavior of a Sled in detail because I have no experience with them and there isn't sufficient documentation available.
What I wrote in the description and here is based on credible reports including writings by several well respected naval architects but that's as far I can go.
Yes, the prop will probably cavitate under some conditions.
I never thought that wild turns at high speed were very seamanlike anyway.

Jac,

Ken Handyman writes that the orignal seasled were rough riding boats when lightly loaded, and talks about some modification he had to do to the hull design to overcome this problem...do you expect our Tx Sled to be very similar to the orignal Seasled or have you made some mods to reduce the pressure inside the tunnel...?

Another fact that came to light was that the Sea Sleds were rough riding boats, when lightly loaded.

It appeared that if a way could be found to reduce the pressure inside the tunnel, the unnecessarily large (for my needs) load-carrying capacity could be exchanged for a softer ride. The obvious answer, since modern power catamarans resemble sleds, was to attempt to modify an existing, lightweight cat design. The idea that slowly developed, was to incorporate the two most important features of the sleds: the beautiful sweeping bow sections and some of the tunnel compression features, into a proven design.

jacquesmm wrote:.....If you choose the Sled, you will have to tinker with engine height unless you go for a jack plate. The study plans clearly state that.

If the Engine already has Trim and Tilt control ...is the Jack Plate still recommended...

Sorry if this is a stupid question....I really don't know any better...!

The jack plate will allow you to raise or lower the motor vertically. Tilt & trim mainly moves the motor horizontally (well, in an arc) to raise or lower the bow of the boat.

Hydraulic models allow you to raise or lower while underway, so you could play with the engine height to find the sweet spot.

Example:

Thanks Jay ....

I Love that Rubrail on your boat...where can I get it...?

Love to be able to tell you but it ain't my boat.....came from redfish boats web site.

baba101 wrote:Jac,

Ken Handyman writes that the orignal seasled were rough riding boats when lightly loaded, and talks about some modification he had to do to the hull design to overcome this problem...do you expect our Tx Sled to be very similar to the orignal Seasled or have you made some mods to reduce the pressure inside the tunnel...?

Who said I or other designers agreed with that statement?
Rough compared to what? A flat bottom boat or a Boston Whaler?
Before discussing solutions, we must 1st agree that there is a problem to solve. Most designers and owners agree that sleds have smoother ride than other boats.
See my response about the Boston Whaler comparaison, that explains it.

Plus, why would I want to reduce pressure in the tunnel? It's the opposite of what we want in a sled, we want lift from the tunnel for a smoother ride.

Regarding the depth to set the outboard motor when running a Sea Sled type of hull with a single engine, I found this reference. A picture of an inverted vee fiberglass boat is in Messing About in Boats, volume 15, issue 13, page 20. It is a 16' runabout, late 1950's, manufactured by Matador. It has a single 40 hp Tohatsu outboard with a 20" longshaft, mounted low, with its cavitation plate 3" below hull. The transom is cut to 15". Located in Gloucester, MA, owned by Michael Stephens.

2 or 3" is about right on plane.

Jac/Joel

Guys when are you going to post the PDF (scaled drawing) for Tx18..? I have been checking every day (twice a day)...

Maybe never . . . I hesitate about posting that one, it would be like giving the plans away for free.

Wow. I'm stunned. I've been waiting for this type hull design. If you've never ridden in a Cat, you can't appreciate how smooth a ride the air cushion provides. Even with the open back of the Cat tunnel. My father has a 32' TwinVee with twin 250's and you can't make it pound.


Jacques,

I will build this if you make plans for more freeboard. I want it for lake useage. 18' is as big as I can build in my current shop. And I don't want a boat with twin fuel suckers. I've waiting for a boat to fit several needs.

1) Good fish boat that can also pull a tube for the kids.
2) Runs well in a chop. Rules out flat and very shallow VEE's.
3) Doesn't require a lot of power for a good turn of speed. Rules out most larger VEE's

And this is such a unique design. Please consider adding a higher freeboard option to the plans. I'm not concerned with the additional plywood needed. It will be a small price to pay.


Steven

OK, I'll tell the secret.
Last week, Baba101 convinced me to design a Sea Sled 18' with more freeboard and I did it. I did not want to go through all the CAD work but I drafted the hull lines, all the hull panels and all the frames with dimensions. That is enough to build the boat if you have the plans for the TX18.
The lines are slightly different: there is a little bit of negative deadrise at the transom and the chine panel is narrower.
I will not go further in the design at this point but since the drawings exist, you can have them when you order the TX18 plans.
You need the TX18 plans for the construction details, they go together.
Order the TX18 plans and write a note saying that you want the HS18 sheets too.

BTW, Baba's plans shipped today with the HS18 drawings.

Will you be able to post a sketch of what it would look like with the higher freeboard?

That's juts the kind of work I want to avoid. I'll see what I have.

Did you add the deadrise at the transom to allow for "normal" motor position to eliminate need for a transom jack plate? If not, what was the reason for the change.

I will be ordering the plans. Thanks for making the update. Oh, and if you did find some extra time to post a rendering, much appreciated.

I live in Southwest Florida and fish the the Gulf inshore flats, bays and some near shore on good wind days. Most people here use PH18 style flats boats for this. Draft at rest for poling and trolling is very important here. Getting on plane and Running shallow is becoming less important here because most shallow flats are slow zones and are becoming troll/pole zones to protect the seagrass, manatees etc.

It seems to me that the TX18 with the original freeboard ideal (freeboard 16"/cockpit 13") would be a better boat here. Better at rest draft, better ride in a chop, better fuel consumption. Some of the questions below might have to be considered before coming to this conclusion.

Could you put a poling platform on the TX18?

How would the TX18 pole vs. the PH18? Hull slap, etc?

How would the TX18 work with a trolling motor vs. the PH18?

How would the TX18 handle our bay chop vs. the PH18? Ride and Spray (wetness)?

Shoud I consider anything else?

-Deadrise: the higher freeboard version will be used in rougher seas. Hickman did show a small amount of negative deadrise in his latest design. It should reduce the amount of sneeze and soften the rider in real bad weather.

The Sled will probably not pole as well as a vee hull. It does not have less static draft and because of the tunnel, it will slap.
The advantage of the sled is the smoothness of the ride.

All this is speculation: I have no experience with Hickman Sleds. Very few people have, I can only go by what was written about those boats and try to predict their behavior.
I trust the principle but that's all.

Sorry, I will not produce a rendering of the high freeboard version.
That version started by some verbal advice then I decided to sketch something and finally, I drew the stations and hull panels but that is where I stop. I am busy designing the Panga 28 and the TW34, may very well have to finish the LB26 who is at a stand still and I also started the Abaco 23 and the Abaco 28. Too much on my plate right now but I'll revisit the Sea Sled if plans sales justify the investment in design hours.

Jacquesmm, you said, It does not have less static draft. I am kind of confused, the PH18 study plan says it has 6" draft (the PDF file says 7" draft) and your TX18 study plan says 5" draft.

OK, maybe 1/2" or 1". The PH18 prototype floated in 5" but I used a safety margin on the stuyd plans.
Does 1" really matter?

Thanks Jacquesmm, you are right 1" really does not matter. The only thing that caught my eye with the TX18 is the ride in rougher waters. Here in SW Florida in the winter time with 15+mph winds and a flats boat most people just stay home because they don't want to get beat up and wet getting to the protected bays. It really looks like the best selling point of the TX18 or other inverted vees is the smoother ride.

That's why we decided to offer that plan. You have the same conditions all around the Gulf of Mexico, it's not specific to Texas.

Coul you give us an idea of how much extra freeboard? 6" 12" ?

Thx!

See the TX18 study plans. I added a picture showing the two boats:



It adds around 10" in the middle. Note that the text says that it is for those who want to experiment.
I can not predict exact behavior or do a detailed comparison between the two.

Baba is building just down the road from me. I can't wait to see this take form. I am doing the FS14 for fun and I have vacilated between the C17 and the Panga for the next one. The only thing I found more interesting was the Simmons Sea skiff type thats been written about. I've fished from one and at the price of fuel up here lower horsepower means less fuel means more days on the water.

jacquesmm wrote:See the TX18 study plans. I added a picture showing the two boats:



It adds around 10" in the middle. Note that the text says that it is for those who want to experiment.
I can not predict exact behavior or do a detailed comparison between the two.

The beam on the high freeboard version looks narrower. How much so?

above ques. posted by steven

Around 8" less.

Looks like the Seasled will have more freeboard than PH18..a little more draft than the Tx sled...

Perfect for me....Thanks Jac...

Any idea how much more plywood and fiberglass for the sea sled version?

Anonymous wrote:Any idea how much more plywood and fiberglass for the sea sled version?

No, it's not a complete design. I did not do the plywood nesting.
Let's say around 10% more resin and glass and probably 4 or 5 more ply sheets.

Extending the inverted V through the transom works great as per a New Zealand builder at http://ivb-boats.netfirms.com/

However the greatest improvement for shallow running is to use a surface prop drive which is what Albert Hickman designed the sea sled to do in the first place. Even a surface prop on an outboard would be an economical solution.

Has anyone built the texas sled yet?

I would be interested in plans and kit for a much larger one with a fully closed cabin for public transportation. Is this possible and if so at what cost?

robint777@hotmail.com

My apologies, I had not gotten through all of the postings , but tonight I did so.

So now I understand the present status of building relating to the texas sled.

For myself, I would buy, plans and material kit for a larger version. 23 to 28 ft range.

either with a full cabin or provision for same. Usage to be passenger transport.

I definately plan to utilize a surface prop system. Any suggestions as to type of brand that would be most suitable to this design?

FYI I did comparisons with my own 28ft, 36ft and 114ft surface piercing hydrofoils that I have owned and was quite caught off guard to see the sea sled hull design coming very close to the efficiency being approximately 95% of what I was experiencing with my foils. The impressive benifit though was better sea keeping abilities.

Soo.... plan a bigger one and I am in.

RTB

Will the larger sea sled version take more HP and has anybod started one?

I am VERY interested in finding out how this comes out. I live on Lake Conroe (Tx) and will primarily use the boat for inshore saltH2o but it will serve double duty as a bass boat (the large front deck fits the bill for flipping jigs for bass also)... If any of the guys in Tx have started theirs I would be intersted in checking the building process out. let me know if I can come look at the build at various stages or get a test ride once complete!

tpool

Yep .... this dude is already doin it....

http://gallery.bateau2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11527

thanks baba101!

tpool