Laundry List 20' 1976 Seacraft

[Irish6BK]

Nice job bushwacker!! Looks great!! I'm in the process of talking to a guy who rebuilt an old '76 seacraft like the one I have now; however, that one was done like yours- hatches remain the same height. I've asked him to figure out if we could raise the hatches to the transom level and leave space for a live bait well down the line. He is looking at it today- so I'll keep you posted.

I am leaning towards the lines on top of the bracket since it wont be coming straight thru the transom to the inside of the boat- that will all be an enclosed area in the back. Then we'll run it thru the flooring to the center console.

Weight?? I've heard people say
1. you need to add weight to the front of the boat (someone said 700 lbs)
2. older seacrafts sit heavier in the water- so you might not need to add much weight to the bow.

I have an "idea" but not sure if it will work. I want to put my fresh water washdown in the front hatch (been looking for a rubber bladder that can form to the space) and a reserve gas tank in the 2nd hatch in the bow step up area..

Interested to know people's thoughts on that...

[Irish6BK]

2 bow hatches- front- fresh water washdown tank / center- reserve gas tank



AND THEN THERES THE CENTER CONSOLE

[Bushwacker]

. . .I am leaning towards the lines on top of the bracket since it wont be coming straight thru the transom to the inside of the boat- that will all be an enclosed area in the back. Then we'll run it thru the flooring to the center console.

Weight?? I've heard people say
1. you need to add weight to the front of the boat (someone said 700 lbs)
2. older seacrafts sit heavier in the water- so you might not need to add much weight to the bow.

Interested to know people's thoughts on that...

Even if you clutter up the platform by running all the lines across it instead of under it, they'll still have to dip down to get under the deck, so why not run them down under the platform so you'll have a straight run into the bilge? Only disadvantage to Don's rigging system is the cables have to be a little longer, but that's not an issue if you use quality cables.

To a guy that has spent 45 years in the aerospace world where even a couple of ounces of excess weight was a big deal, adding 700 LBS of weight to the bow just because somebody screwed up and got the CG wrong, seems like a terrible idea! First mistake folks make on these boats is putting a 500 lb motor on a boat that was designed for an I-6 Merc of less than 300 lbs! Next mistake is moving the heavy motor 30" aft on a bracket with insufficient flotation. Adding ballast to the bow to compensate for the first 2 mistakes only compounds the problem and creates an even heavier boat that won't have the superior ride and performance that is expected of a SeaCraft!

SeaCrafts don't sit heavier in the water unless they're full of waterlogged foam and decks. In fact if you compare the weight of the original Moesly 4-stringer design on the '72 and earlier 20's to most modern wider beam 20' boats, you'll find that they're pretty light, considering the thickness and strength of the layup. Balsa core in the decks and cap made a big difference compared to the plywood used in the post-Moesly/Potter boats. The VDH hull is also very efficient and doesn't require as much power as conventional hulls. A lot of 20's were sold new with 85-115 hp motors and rode very well with that lightweight power.

On the baitwell, why put it on the transom and make the boat even more stern heavy? I'd be inclined to go with a leaning post with a baitwell underneath it to get the weight forward a bit.

[gofastsandman]

Even if you clutter up the platform by running all the lines across it instead of under it, they'll still have to dip down to get under the deck, so why not run them down under the platform so you'll have a straight run into the bilge? Only disadvantage to Don's rigging system is the cables have to be a little longer, but that's not an issue if you use quality cables.

To a guy that has spent 45 years in the aerospace world where even a couple of ounces of excess weight was a big deal, adding 700 LBS of weight to the bow just because somebody screwed up and got the CG wrong, seems like a terrible idea! First mistake folks make on these boats is putting a 500 lb motor on a boat that was designed for an I-6 Merc of less than 300 lbs! Next mistake is moving the heavy motor 30" aft on a bracket with insufficient flotation. Adding ballast to the bow to compensate for the first 2 mistakes only compounds the problem and creates an even heavier boat that won't have the superior ride and performance that is expected of a SeaCraft!

SeaCrafts don't sit heavier in the water unless they're full of waterlogged foam and decks. In fact if you compare the weight of the original Moesly 4-stringer design on the '72 and earlier 20's to most modern wider beam 20' boats, you'll find that they're pretty light, considering the thickness and strength of the layup. Balsa core in the decks and cap made a big difference compared to the plywood used in the post-Moesly/Potter boats. The VDH hull is also very efficient and doesn't require as much power as conventional hulls. A lot of 20's were sold new with 85-115 hp motors and rode very well with that lightweight power.

On the baitwell, why put it on the transom and make the boat even more stern heavy? I'd be inclined to go with a leaning post with a baitwell underneath it to get the weight forward a bit.

Listen to the Elder, His mind is faster than mine ever was.




She loves the water there. Sits right down. Almost feels like an inboard. Now I`m getting greedy.

Carl had the cg at the mid point of the gas tank. Always thinking.

Search Bushwacker`s threads and learn.

As always, ask questions.

Cheers,
GFS