---

I am looking at ads for a whaler I believe to be a Sakonnet project boat. Very cheap. Hull needs work and has soft spots and console on boat looks to be original mahogany CC - not sure it is salvageable and i need to see it. Before I go look at it, I have never owned a boat of this type. I am not afraid of work. That said, transom work is not part of restoration I want to be anywhere near so if that does not check out as solid, I would not take it for free.

I have heard that here are pros and cons to smirked and smirkless hulls. Based on what I have read, assuming I am not pushing the performance envelope it seems either would be a fine performer but either can be a rough rider. The question here is - how much better is a smirked hull for a person who does not intend to push performance envelopes? I have read that there is less wet ride and pounding with smirked at the expense of some stability and speed - I am not a speed demon anyhow. Would plan to power it with a 90HP 2 stroke.

I have looked at MANY threads on whaler repair and, while whaler is one of several choices I have (looking at Mckee 16's and 17's that have a whaler like ride and have seen a KMV 528 17 footer that seems interesting but these are very rare and there are support concerns), availability of parts and information is amazing on whalers.n And then there is the Boston Whaler name....

Bottom line, other than transom or obvious issues on outer hull, if glass is essentially intact, is there a point where separation of glass from foam becomes irreparable? A few spot I believe I can deal with. not afraid to sand and have spray painted before - just not gelcoat. I guess I can expect, even with a workmanlike job, that past issues may cause future ills to crop up.

Thoughts on smirked vs smirkless and degree of repairabilty within reason welcome, and thanks.