Hull design- thoughts?

General boating discussion
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:08 pm

Hull design- thoughts?


Post by alumioforte »

Howdy team,
What are your thoughts on the Aleutian from Silverback?
Donator 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
Posts: 1589
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:37 am
Location: Kenai, Alaska

Re: Hull design- thoughts?


Post by kmorin »

nice looking rendering! A couple or remarks without seeing the body sections and noting the 24 deg deadrise at the transom! (features listing in text) !That is some pretty deep V action! So, if the boat is warped, and not monohedron, that must get pretty fine entry forward of the helm- implying the ride should be good and soft for even head seas of a 3 feet?

EDIT: just re: read the chine width listing; Not sure of all up displacement but they might be able give you a roll moment or roll period given the 10" wide chines? (Endless design comparison and question for designers.) I'd spent a paragraph discussing rolling side to side; but with known displacement and section - given deadrise and chine width- you can probably get an idea of how much roll time is?

Also, not sure what area you will be fishing (?) so the fuel capacity of 200 gal. seems a little light for a boat with this much power, high speed bottom and so the area on the chart(s) you'll use her would be important.

I think the Alaskan 34'ers are more often packing 350-500 gal. Not necessarily all in one tank- but this gives longer legs for boats of this size without having to find a gas dock- which are NOT very common in Prince William Sound, for example.

I like the looks quite a bit- nice raking brow on the cabin helps the 'western' or 'powder-horn' sheer like look well balanced (IMO) and there's a pretty roomy cockpit for fishing as well as decent sized berths for the longer cruises.

Interesting version of the trunk cabin and fore deck. To get the standing room in the V berth the trunk rises aft to the break in the windscreen/window band. This line is a little bit more industrially influenced than traditional trunk cabin lines- but they make it look balanced and proportional just sloped more than is common in the past. However that allows the taller after intersection with the windscreen to look good while keeping the trunk's top surface from being 'too tall' at the bow/sheer intersection.

All together a nice looking boat, in my view. 600k$ ?? just guessing about ball park (base) price range?

Kevin Morin
Kenai, AK
Last edited by kmorin on Wed Feb 10, 2021 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: didn't read link well enough before replying
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:08 pm

Re: Hull design- thoughts?


Post by alumioforte »

Thanks kmorin,

On point, and well noted. Yes agree we could add more fuel capacity easily. I'm thinking the boat would be around the $400K mark sparse, and then up from there depending on the options and electronics? PM me your email and i'll send more detailed prints.
Donator 21
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:20 pm
Location: Houston / Ketchikan

Re: Hull design- thoughts?


Post by JonH »

Listed fuel capacity is 250 gal - pretty small for a boat of this size & power.

25" transom height is unusual for a boat of this size - 30" would be normal.

What is the estimated displacement - both light ship & fully loaded?

Gunwale width is 10" - is this the entire length of the boat or just the cockpit

10' -2" beam is relatively narrow for a boat of this length.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 4597
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:51 pm
Location: Whitesboro, Texas

Re: Hull design- thoughts?


Post by welder »

24* dead rise, that will be a fuel eating machine and without ballast tubes she may roll a bunch while sitting still.
PacificV2325, Honda BF225
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:02 pm

Re: Hull design- thoughts?


Post by Trousertrout »

That fuel capacity is really mind blowing. That's a large hull that has to have room for more capacity.
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:38 pm
Location: da whirled

Re: Hull design- thoughts?


Post by hamachitoro »

Looks a lot like the Coldwater Boats hull form. I own a 30' charter boat here in Alaska, and would say 24.5* deadrise is overkill. 18* is plenty in a boat that size and displacement, not to mention the added stability at rest you gain. At 24.5* it would need huge chine flats to maintain comparable heeling characteristics. The diagram shows the bottom being 9'wide, beam being 10'4" at the stern, beam increasing midship to most likely around 11'. The overall length being 34' would put the hull length at around 31' if I'm reading the diagram correctly. These are pretty normal proportions for a boat of this nature. I like the rounded bow as it's high volume which is a great thing when you end up in weather less favorable. The freeboard is a bit low, but some people like that. Really what would be interesting to see is how high above the water line the freeing ports end up, as with the low free board they could be fairly close to the waterline, which I don't like. This could be an indicator of why the tankage is rated at 250 gal if the dance floor is flush with the cabin floor. The forefoot seems of average/shallow depth as it would need to be with 24.5* deadrise at the transom. I have found deeper forefoot aluminum planing hulls are not as common as their shallower counter parts but I prefer them for "nosing in" in a head sea at moderate speed to keep passengers comfortable. Part of this equation is a nice moderate deadrise aft, which in turn will help the vessel be less "broachy" in a following sea. Overall looks like a nice boat, it takes owning a few to get to the point where you know exactly what you want, and even then of course everything is a tradeoff.
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic