Page 1 of 1

Waterwitch

Posted: Wed January 18th, 2012, 11:21 am
by Tied2
Hello all this is my first post.

I need advise on the waterwitch general sailing abilities and comparisons between wood and steel hulls. This is prompted by a steel waterwitch being for sale. which I'm interested in. This particular WW displacement is quoted as 6 tonne which equals 13227 lbs The displacement quoted on this site is 9500 lbs taking one from the other gives 3727.6 or nearly 1.7 tonne difference. I expect the discrepancy is partly because the the displacement quoted here is for the wooden version and possible without an engine and equipment? The WW in question is the ketch version, with centre cockpit and bilge plates. As an aside comparisons between the sloop and ketch would be most welcome as well.

Many thanks in anticipation

Re: Waterwitch

Posted: Thu January 19th, 2012, 11:15 am
by Fiddler's Green
Hello There, the displacement listed in our spec is the plan displacement all up with motor.

However many turn out to be heavier! But 6 tons??? No suspect this may be Thames measurment, not displacement. 4 tonne to maybe 4.5 tonne for the heaviest built!

The Steel WW should really be no heavier than a timber one, as the hull plating is thinner and at 30ft the weight of steel versus timber is about the same.

Hope this helps on the weight.

Re rig, matter of choice. The Sloop may be more efficient, but sail areas larger so need more strength or gear to operate. The Ketch therefore easier handled sails, and some say looks better.

If you are interested in a WW you are probably not looking for a racer so looks and sea keeping ability maybe count for more. Of the WW's that have done great voyages, most have been ketches. A good few have also been leeboard versions!

The choice of bilge keel or leeboard is again a personal one, do you need really shallow draft? If so the Lee board version. The Bilge keel version is still shoal draft, approx 1 metre, certainly when compared to most 30ft boats, has good anti roll capabilites and can dry out.

Cabin layouts again personal chioce. The aft cabin can be an asset with 2 couples or children aboard. The Centre cockpit is certainly more sheltered and the addition of a spray hood or timber wheelhouse transforms the area even more.

Have a look at the Gallery, you will see many of these options in practice.

Hope this helps.
John

Re: Waterwitch

Posted: Fri January 20th, 2012, 9:51 am
by Tied2
Thanks for that John, I checked the displacement with the owner before I posted here, he only uses the words displacement, it will have to remain a mystery for present. As to sailing abilities, firstly I'm interested in a sailing boat rather than a motor sailer, not interest in sailing round the cans. Good sailing abilities is important though, what sort performance should I expect, what sensible speed could be used for passage planning. How would the WW compare with the Eventide 26 in these respects

Getting back to the WW displacement.
Do you happen to know the pounds to immersion rate for the WW . From my reading on this site the water line should ideally be just below the transom and my best estimate at the bows around 4' 5" (from the study plans) So with these figures and the pounds to immersion rate a good estimate of displacement could be arrived at, agreed?

posting.php?mode=reply&f=8&t=331#

Re: Waterwitch

Posted: Fri January 20th, 2012, 6:12 pm
by Fiddler's Green
Hello Michael.

I sailed my Eventide all the way to Cornwall in company with the WW 'Dougaljo' she is sloop rigged, we sailed together. There was little in it betwixt us as her waterline length is longer, but the Eventide slightly more slippery....

Difference was when it got lumpy, as it did, Dougaljo did not bounce up down as much as we did!

Not sure I under stand the term 'pounds to immersion' not come accross that one before??? The waterline height depends on displacement obviously and the more you load up the boat with kit the deeper it will go. My waterline is about 2" above the tip of the transom and so is the Waterline on Dougaljo, but we are carrying the proverbial kitchen sinks! Nothing left at home, all mod cons on board! You can get a good idea of the loaded trim of the boats from the dozens of pictures on the gallery pages.

Speed under sail? Both cruise at 5 knots in normal breezes, but not to windward of course. Normal Max speed 6 for the Eventide and 6.5 for the WW. If the logs says faster you are going down hill. With an Eventide 24 I owned years ago I used to allow 4 knots as speed for a passage.

Once logged 6.5 in the Eventide 26, but I was over canvased in a force 6 and the wife not best pleased!

Anyone who claims higher speeds spends too long at the bar.

Main thing is these boats are comfortabble, easy on the crew and espesially the helmsman, provided the boat is rigged correctly has the proper keel and ballast and the mast is set up correctly. Nothing worse on the crew and the helm than an over canvased boat with bad weather helm. Something we have found the cure for on our boats.

Have to admit to haveing a good inboard and if wind and tide turn foul I can cruise at 5 knots with the motor, max in calm water 6 knots, the WW a smidge more.

Hope this helps,
Regards,
John

Re: Waterwitch

Posted: Sat January 21st, 2012, 4:09 pm
by Tied2
John

Very interesting, just the sort of first hand info I was looking for. I would think either boat would suite me fine, the passage speed is what I expected, reassuring to have it confirmed though. Pounds per inch immersion rate is the weight required (usually in pounds) to sink the boat 1 inch. a good description here http://www.tedbrewer.com/yachtdesign.html Under yacht design---a primer

Michael

Re: Waterwitch

Posted: Sat January 21st, 2012, 6:00 pm
by Fiddler's Green
Hi Michael,

Under stand what you mean now!

I altered the Ballast on my Eventide 24, many, many years ago. It increased the draft by 4 inches by adding 500lb to the keel! Add to that I deepened the keel in line with later drawings by 4 inches and from that day on, she sailed!

There were a lot of Eventides built to the very early drawings that needed more ballast and deeper keels, thankfuly by the time the WW got on the drawing board lessons were learnt and Maurice increased the Ballast and draft, so they sail.

Regards,
John