|
Choosing a boat.
|
| jhaible |
Posted on 07/26/14 - 7:24 PM
|
Member
Posts: 2
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/26/14
|
Hello all. am looking at several possibilities on the purchase of an older whaler.In question is a 16" 1966 or getting into a 1980's hull with the more modern hull. As a teenager I used to ride around with a friends's Dad's boat up in Maine waters with the earlier Sakonnet model and seem to remember it being pretty poundy. It seems clear that the reason for the newer (Montauk ?) hull was to soften the ride up.
I love the look of the older Sakonnet models - and they tend to be a little more affordable in the used boat catagory - but if other boat owners' experiences the newer hull would be significantly a softer and accomodating ride for my not as experienced passengers as "the captain," I would take any advice seriously and lean towards the newer 1980's and forward.
Any advice out there. ?? Thanks loads.
John |
| |
|
|
| aaronm |
Posted on 07/27/14 - 6:30 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 65
Comments:
0
Joined: 08/29/12
|
I have a 1965 16' Currituck. I would strongly lean towards the 1980's era.
|
| |
|
|
| blacksmithdog |
Posted on 07/27/14 - 11:56 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 417
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/26/06
|
We've had a 1969, a 1976, and a 2006. They've improved the ride all the way along.
|
| |
|
|
| mtown |
Posted on 07/27/14 - 12:04 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 610
Comments:
5
Joined: 07/06/08
|
What waters are you using it in?
|
| |
|
|
| jhaible |
Posted on 07/27/14 - 2:24 PM
|
Member
Posts: 2
Comments:
0
Joined: 07/26/14
|
I'm up in the Penobscot Bay - Maine. It can get nasty - rocky bottoms and all. All your collective comments appreciated. Thx John
John |
| |
|
|
| blacksmithdog |
Posted on 07/28/14 - 4:06 AM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 417
Comments:
0
Joined: 06/26/06
|
We were out about a week ago in Pamlico sound in North Carolina. The sound is extremely shallow and if there's any wind the waves get big. We had 5 adults in the 2006 Montauk 170 and the wind was blowing at 20 mph. At about 3500 rpms doing about 20 mph it stayed on top of the waves and didn't pound at all.
|
| |
|
|
| Weatherly |
Posted on 07/28/14 - 4:37 AM
|
Member
Posts: 752
Comments:
4
Joined: 12/31/06
|
Your recollections are correct: the 16 hull can be very uncomfortable at speed in heavy seas. The 17 hull is just as bad but less wet because of the smirked hull. You may be able to buy a 16 hull for less than a 17, but you will have more annual maintenance if it has mahogany wood. My suggestion is try to find a 1986-1991 Montauk. They are well made Rockland, MA boats.
|
| |
|
|
| Phil T |
Posted on 07/28/14 - 7:14 AM
|
Administrator
Personal Page
Personal Album
Project Albums
Posts: 6985
Comments:
6
Joined: 03/26/05
|
With 10 years (March-November) of experience in Casco Bay, I would prefer a Montauk 170 over a classic 16'7 or smirked hull.
I moved from a classic Montauk to an Outrage 17 I because I got tired of getting slammed around day after day. The 1985-1989 Outrage 20 is the ideal boat (LOA, weight, power, size, towing etc) in my opinion.
I learned the weather is easily crap and the "season" is too short, get a boat that can handle the weather.
Edited by Phil T on 07/28/14 - 7:14 AM |
| |
|
|
| mtown |
Posted on 07/28/14 - 2:09 PM
|
Member
Personal Page
Posts: 610
Comments:
5
Joined: 07/06/08
|
The older 16'7 hull is very flat and stable in a drift or beam sea and wet but not bad in a following sea, whether it is chop or not. A small head sea and this boat pounds and is wet unless you are alone and can power through the troughs.
The 18' Outrage [mine is 1985] has more V and beam but will still pound in a short chop like the Chesapeake Bay gets.
A lot depends on what your crew and you are willing to put up with when things change during a trip. I took my son and daughter on a 35 mile one way beating in 30 mph winds on our nose and they thought it was fun. Wife and dog would have divorced me.
All that said I have 16' classic 18 ' Outrage 22' outrage.
Usage is way more from small to big. Love them all.
|
| |
|
