Small Woolwich draught

[Timleech]

Measured Archimedes (small Woolwich) at the point of where the propeller is, from the Uxterplate to the bottom of the Skeg. Was as close to 3 foot as makes no difference. I think the plans Yarwoods produced show 3 foot too don't they?

 

Actually, you might be right with the Joshers, as some/all? have a drop skeg, and I can't remember when I measured the one in Pete's yard if I included it or not.

 

Mike

 

 

 

Might not the differences some of you are arguing about be exactly because you are not all talking about the same measurement.

 

Surely if you measure upwards from bottom of the skeg to bottom of uxter plate at the point where the prop is, then you are measuring up into the part of the uxter where it is most "domed" upwards.

 

If the edges of the uxter, where it joins the curved sides of the counter were just sitting at waterline, then the bit you are measuring up to is then surely a couple of inches above the waterline, because there will be an air-space there as the boat sits static.

 

That measurement only represents a static draught if you ballast the boat own to where that domed part of the uxter plate you are measuring up to is touching the water, but at that point the sides of the uxter would be well below waterline, wouldn't they ?

 

I can imagine this may well make difference of a couple of inches to any answer one comes up with.

 

I've just measured an unreconstructed Small Woolwich out of the water.

The distance from bottom of skeg to bottom of Uxter, measured vertically just behind the Stern Post and on the centreline of the boat, is near as dammit 36".

The amount of dishing of the uxter plate, measured at the same point, is just 2".

 

So - a small Woolwich sitting with the counter just touching the water at the back of the cabin/stern post will be drawing 2'10" static. This is a level at which, from my own experience, they behave pretty well.

 

Tim

[alan_fincher]

So - a small Woolwich sitting with the counter just touching the water at the back of the cabin/stern post will be drawing 2'10" static. This is a level at which, from my own experience, they behave pretty well.

Probably about what I'd expect, (although no doubt I have managed to say something previously that contradicts this! )

 

If Sickle, (yep I know she is neither a "Small" nor a "Woolwich"!), is anything to go by, if you do have the counter just about sitting on the water when static, it will pull down by at least that couple of extra inches even at quite moderate speeds, (giving an approx 3 foot draught moving), and by quite a bit more again if you open it up not very much at all.

 

Here is a randomly found picture - I certainly wasn't caning it here, I think.......

 

[David Schweizer]

I've just measured an unreconstructed Small Woolwich out of the water.

The distance from bottom of skeg to bottom of Uxter, measured vertically just behind the Stern Post and on the centreline of the boat, is near as dammit 36".

The amount of dishing of the uxter plate, measured at the same point, is just 2".

So - a small Woolwich sitting with the counter just touching the water at the back of the cabin/stern post will be drawing 2'10" static. This is a level at which, from my own experience, they behave pretty well.

 

Tim

For years I have been saying that at 34" a small Woolwich (or Northwich) draws very little more than our boat at 33" and have been ridiculed repeatedly by the "experts" on here. Now we have two confirmed measurements that demonstrate that I have not been making it up.

[furnessvale]

For years I have been saying that at 34" a small Woolwich (or Northwich) draws very little more than our boat at 33" and have been ridiculed repeatedly by the "experts" on here. Now we have two confirmed measurements that demonstrate that I have not been making it up.

 

For what it is worth, a large Woolwich also draws 2' 10" with counter just touching, or at least ALTON does.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[mykaskin]

I really wish I could remember what the measurement was on Archi, but if she's only 2'10" on, then no wonder she's way faster than Vicky!!

 

Mike