Thread: Seagull vs MSD

Mate, for what you're doing, either would work.

The Seagull is stitch and glue ... which I believe is a messy and expensive way to build this sort of boat but lots don't seem to agree with me - it is a well established way of building this sort of boat.

The MSD Rowboat uses chine logs - lengths of wood along the seam between the bottom and the sides instead of the fillet of epoxy covered with fibreglass tape used by the Seagull. Is it easier? I think it is but I like working with wood. I've also built stitch and glue so I've got some comparison.

Both boats would build fairly easily - no dramas there. I prefer the interior construction of the MSD but the Welsford works too. Both will do what you want.

I'm building an MSD - you can follow my adventures down in the Storer sub forum. A Brisbane bloke, Tom, has built one too and is actually using his (the workshop fairies are being really slack building mine so I might have to do the work myself ).

The Seagull has been designed to take an outboard and the designer notes the drop in performance as a result. The MSD is a pure rowboat. It probably doesn't make any difference in the real world but I don't think the ability to take an outboard is a selling point - if you want to use an outboard, buy a boat designed to be used with one rather than foist one on a boat designed for something different.

I wouldn't put any great stock in claims of ease of build or stability - both are eminently buildable by a beginner, both will do the job you describe and both offer the initial stability of a flat bottomed boat.

So which one?

Whichever you prefer, for whatever reason makes most sense to you, you'll be happy either way.

If I had to promote one, it'd be the MSD - the plans are excellent, the design is constantly being updated as Mik gets feedback, the chine log build method will be cheaper and more logical ... and I've got one so I'm predjudiced (I've also got a Welsford boat so not completely predjudiced).

Richard

Thank you Richard, that opened my eyes to a lot of things. The lessor coast of the chine log process and most importantly less time. I'm still working on the patience neede for such a project but as I'm working on it, i need to get a instant gratification of a fairly quick build.
I'm going to check out your MSD , this might be the way to go afterall.

Thanks
Magd

The weakness of the MSD will be when there are two adults aboard. I have kept the ends of the boats quite fine (narrow) to reduce wetted surface for rowing. An adult in the back will put the boat well out of trim. However a couple of kids would not be too bad as you could have the big one at the back and the small one at the front to keep balance.

The MSD is really based around one person - though I fiddled it so that Daddles could sit a bit further forward and his daughter could sit in the back.

Best wishes
Michael

There's a lot to be said for the longitudinal thwart as in Bolger's Nymph for maintaining trim.
It would be logical to extend a form of this into the rowing "classes" such as
MSD & Seagull & etc. Maybe a couple of lengthways frames with seats which
can be located anywhere on them, along with a variation of the RowWing to
keep the galley-slave happy.

Stop confusing the lad AJ ... but Mikalak uses a longitudinal thwart (seat) too. The issue I have with it is the need for rowlocks so unless you have a lot of holes in your gunwales, it really only offers room for a long armed apes as well as short arses

Richard

Hence the RowWing coment - the rowlocks travel with the rower's seat.

Originally Posted by b.o.a.t.

Hence the RowWing coment - the rowlocks travel with the rower's seat.

That's a cunning ploy, I wasn't aware of that one. Got a link to it or is it like everything else Bolger, only findable by Bolgerphiles ... like you

Richard

google Row Wing.

Have seen a pic of a laminated wooden affair somewhere but can't remember where.
AJ

Originally Posted by b.o.a.t.

google Row Wing.

Have seen a pic of a laminated wooden affair somewhere but can't remember where.
AJ

Oh, one of them sliding seat contraptions. You can have that, I'm a fixed seat man ... for the next boat or two, I promise nothing after that

Richard

Magd,

Have a close look at Ross Lillistone's "Flint" & the comments from one particular builder on Ross' website:

www.baysidewoodenboats.com.au

That's one very sweet rowing boat!

I confess to being a friend of Ross & have built two of his other designs.

His plans are clear,professional & highly detailed just like his website,which is a valuable source of hands-on information free for all to see & enjoy.

Al.

Hey Al,

Thanks very much for the kind comments you made (I'll send you the money next week), especially about the website and plans.

Magd will be the first one to try the 17.5ft stretch that I drew based on the original Flint drawings. What I have done is to increase the overall length from 14' 7-1/2" LOA to 17' 5" on the same sections. However, the expanded panel shapes are not a straight expansion - due to the geoetry of the panel-expansion process, and the fact that a straight expansion would have resulted in the angle of the transom increasing from its existing 12 degrees. On the 17.5' version, the transom has been kept at 12 degrees, so in proportion terms, the bottom length has been increased more than the topsides.

When discussing the proposal with Magd, I spent hours working over a totally different internal arrangement, so as to make it feasible to have tandem rowing as an option. The problem is that you have to consider: -

• single oarsperson
• single oarsperson and a single passenger
• two oarspersons (people?)
• two oarspersons and a passenger
• one oarsperson and two passengers
• two oarspeople and two passengers; etc., etc., etc.

The only way to ensure decent trim in all situations is to employ a pair of longitudinal stringers with movable seats, as Phil Bolger did with his [I]Stretched Light Dory[I] design - and even then you have to have a large number of oarlock locations.

In the end, we decided to go with a standard [I]Flint[I] layout - width of thwarts expanded proportionally, but the actual distance from aft edge-of-thwart-to-oarlock-and-foot brace kept in absolute units.

The resulting boat should be even easier to build than the original, but will consume more materials.

Ross

Sorry Ross, it doesn't exist without pictures

We wanna line drawing at least

Richard

Richard,

All you have to do is draw the original on an elastic garter, and them stretch it - if you are already warped, the transom angle should be no problem....

Rossco,

I'll pick up the money when next we meet....but I reckon I'm still in debt to you!

But look at this if you've done 56 posts on this forum & built well over 50 boats,& I've 35 posts & done about a dozen boats,what size armada must Richard have built with over 4,500 posts?The man's a legend!

Al.