Huckins performance

[Q.Foster]

I need to learn more about the older Huckins yacht powerboats. I have seen the coffee table book put out by the Huckins Yard, but I need to hear some informed opinion, such as may be found on this forum.

Legendary Huckins yachts are still being built in Jacksonville Florida, but I am interested in the older boats, the ones built in the 60s. The hull design was based on the old PT boat hull design, which is based on the old commuter yachts of the thirties...Long and narrow, high speed, planing hulls.

I need to find out how they perform in the modern world. Do they pound? do they cut through the waves? Do they roll your guts out in a seaway like an Elco?

Does the hull puncture easily through their molded ply hulls? I seem to read a lot about them sinking catastrophically after striking something at high speed. Many of them have had epoxy skins put over the bottom, even by the Huckins Yard. Does this make sense?

I don't see any remarks on this forum about the legend of these great performers, even if they are stink pots.

Q.

[Hwyl]

I've always thought they would pound, but every time I asked I've been treated with derision. There was an article in WB years and years ago. One of the things I remember was that the performance was very weight dependant. It's really important to keep these boats light.

The build them on Cape Cod too. Olsen Marine (http://www.olsenmarine.com/)

[N. Scheuer]

Which PT Boat? There were a lot of yards building different designs. They seem to have been originated in the UK.

The last page of the new issue of our host's mag offers a tremendous deal on an old 85-ft USCG "Fast Patrol Boat" whose design originated with the "Rum Chasers" of the 1930's.

Moby Nick

[nedL]

In the 60's weren't Huckins' double or triple planked mahogany? Being a hard chine hull they certainly do not roll like the old Elco's. I never heard anything but admiration for them. Yes, they are basically a hard chine flat bottom boat but I think they have a deep enough forefoot that your'd need to be out in a pretty nasty chop to get them to pound. I pretty much 'grew up' on a 1950 46' Chris which had a very similar underbody shape (46' x 12', hard chine, long flat run aft, good forefoot w/a 'V' entry) and it took some pretty sloppy stuff to get her to pound (more than just 'white caps'). They were top performers in their day, but that was when cruising speeds of 15 knots was quick. The hull shape should be efficient on fuel (probably better than today's deep V designs). They were definately one of the 'Cadillacs' of the day.

[N. Scheuer]

Received an expanded Used Boat Index with mt latest Edition of WB which on page-14 lists a 36-ft Huckins built in 2003 priced at $550,000.

The photo shows a really nice bow wave at speed (it sure does look a lot like a PT) but what in blazes do they put into a 36-footer that makes it worth over half-a-million?

Said photo does not look quite as pretty as a Hinkley Picnic Boat.

Moby Nick

[mmd]

"but what in blazes do they put into a 36-footer that makes it worth over half-a-million? - Nick Scheuer The same stuff that they put into Harley-Davidsons to make them worth over thirty grand - the audacity to ask such a price and the cachet to make people willing to pay for it. ;)

I did a project to build moulds for the Huckins Atlantic 44, and they are rather fussy over the fit and finish of their boats.

http://www.boatingmag.com/images/Stests/1102_huck_01.jpg

[ 12-26-2004, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: mmd ]

[John Bell]

"fussy over fit and finish..."

I think theres an adage that says the difference between 95% and 99% perfect is at least 100% more effort. If you've got to have perfection, then be prepared to pay the price! ;)

[Q.Foster]

One of the reasons I love these boats is that they have a no-nonsense, almost military (PT-boat) demeanor, and yet they usually have a yachty-finish as fine as a pearl. (Pearl gray is their distinctive hull color.)

I've been trying to buy one for years, but the price keeps going up out of my reach just when I think I'm ready to grasp a good one. So other people must watch them and think they are worth the big bucks, too.

www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2133422133&idx=1 (http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2133422133&idx=1)

mmd, Congratulations on the work on the new Huckins, they are magnificent and undoubtedly worth the money, given their performance and superb finish. My interest is in the old ones, the classic cruisers from the 50s and 60s, and I am focusing on two wooden ones in particular. I will respond to your email to see what you can shed on my questions.

Q.

[rbgarr]

Here's an interesting (though not original layout) Huckins 34 footer:

http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listing/pl_boat_full_detail.jsp?slim=quick&boat_id=1305935&units=Feet&currency=USD&access =Public&listing_id=1921&url=

[cdragon]

I've spent many hours and many miles on 40' Fairform Flyer from the 60's and I think they are pretty extraordinary boats - run well in any conditions that you'd want to run in, no pounding, pretty efficient, no bad habits in a seaway (yaw, roll etc), very pleasant at idle speeds...terrific boats all in all

[rbgarr]

A postcard of one of the Huckins WW2 PT boats:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=921&item=6146127620&rd=1

[Alan D. Hyde]

A pretty boat, rbgarr:

http://i3.ebayimg.com/02/i/03/32/da/15_1_b.JPG

***

Thanks for the link.

Alan

[N. Scheuer]

anybody know the relative percentages of Huckins PT's versus Elco's? Judging by the pilothouse profile, most of the PT-Boats I see in WW-2 photos are Elcos, as was the famed PT-109.

I'm not carrying a torch for Elco boats. In fact, from what I've read above about Huckins, I'd like to learn more about what makes therse hull so outstanding.

Moby Nick

[Alan D. Hyde]

Didn't they formerly advertise the advantages of their quadra-conic hull design in Yachting?

That would be forty years ago, perhaps.

Or am I just confused? :D

Alan

[boatlover]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Didn't they formerly advertise the advantages of their quadra-conic hull design in Yachting?

That would be forty years ago, perhaps.

Or am I just confused? :D

AlanYou are not confused. A quibble perhaps: Huckins was touting the quadraconic feature in the early 1950's, in "MOTORBOATING and SAILING."

(YACHTING" didn't make it to the news stand in my hometown. (Only recall ever seeing one issue of "RUDDER" there.)

Regards,

Ed R

[ 01-12-2005, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: boatlover ]

[Ken Hutchins]

PT boat production numbers by the end of the war: ELCO 385, HIGGINS 199, HUCKINS 18. Found here, PT Boats (http://www.ptboats.org/20-01-05-ptboat-001.html) Other PT boat info here Battleship Cove (http://www.battleshipcove.org/pt-museum-history.htm) which has an ELCO and a HIGGINS on display. There is also a PT boat exhibit, primarily on PT 109 at Mystic Aquarium (http://www.mysticaquarium.org/newthings/articles/articles.asp).

[rbgarr]

I have trouble picturing how sections of four cones ('quadraconic') can be developed to form a smooth hull bottom along its length, assuming the formula is for use below the chine only. I realize that the four cones may be 'used' on one hull side at a time.

MMD... got any ideas that can be explained. I've got a copy of Lords 'NA of Planing Hulls', but couldn't see an application in there. Did I miss something?

[ 01-12-2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: rbgarr ]

[Paul Scheuer]

PT Trivia. PT 109 Movie Boats. The boats were actually Air Sea Rescue boats. The cockpits were rebuilt to scale because the boats were some 25 feet shorter in overall length than the Elco PTs.

Wife's Uncle Mac worked on the sets for the movie. She's got the behind-the-sceens pics, somewhere.

[mmd]

rbgarr, you ask a difficult question to answer in text. Descriptions of the geometry of non-planar surfaces is pretty esoteric, and much more easily explained on a drafting board with pencil and set squares. (And how I miss the "good ol' days" of manual drafting - it had art & soul!)

In essence, a developable non-planar surface such as a plywood hull bottom is an odd-shaped piece of a cone's surface, cut out, unrolled, and mated along its bottom (keel) edge with its mirror image. The diameter/height (D/H) ratio of the cone and the orientation of the hull panel projected on the cone defines the deadrise angle and bluffness of the bow of the hull. The surface contour of the hull plane is also limited by the originating cone's geometry.

However, if a given cone D/H ratio allows the development of an eye-sweet midbody and aft sections, it may well force a bow shape that is too bluff for both appearance and seaworthiness. The designer who is well-versed in non-planar geometry will know that he can add a second conical development to the mix, with a planar line tangent to the surface of the original cone at a given point on the hull surface. This new cone will have a different D/H than the original, allowing a different curve of the bow section of the hull surface to be superimposed on the original, and flowing smoothly into the previous surface at the tangent line of the two cones. Now you have a bi-conic developable hull surface.

What Mr. Huckins did was to develop a rather complex planar development of four tangental conically-developed surfaces, two on the hull bottom and two on the topsides, hence the term "quadraconic". However, these planar developments were drawn as concave surfaces, not convex, so are not able to be easily formed by sheet materials. What you end up with is a topsides "panel" that seamlessly changes from a sizeable tumblehome aft to a pronounce flare at the bow, and a hull bottom that goes from dead flat aft (at least on the Huckins 44 that I worked on) to a very sharp and extreme concave bow section. On both panels, there is a spot at which you can lay a straight edge from keel to chine, or chine to sheer, and it will lay perfectly flat on the hull surface. This is the tangent line between the two development cones.

If you are of a mind, I can send you a copy of a description of multi-conical development of boat hulls that I have found in an old (1967) edition of the MoToR Boating's Ideal Series book, The Plywood Boatbuilder. It is not much clearer than my description, but it has diagrams which explain a lot. Contact me thru my profile address.

[Ross M]

A great piece of work, MMD - thanks for the effort. :cool:

Ross

[rbgarr]

Mike (mmd)- I got the 'developed surfaces' monograph in this afternoon's mail. Thanks!

[TR]

Michael,

Actually I have an interview (late in life, 1988) with Lindsay Lord in which he claims to have developed the Huckins Quadraconic form while a graduate student at MIT under Professor George Owen. He mentions Frank Huckins had seen a rum-runner (called Row-No-More) that the Lord/Owen team had produced and wanted something like it. I guess this would have been about 1928?

Lord explained the four cones to Frank and he immediately came up with Quadraconic. Lord also developed a formula so Frank could scale the lines for different sized hulls.

I've never come across any mention of this in Huckins literature; they always state Frank was the designer. Who knows?

All the best, Tad

[Wiley Baggins]

Originally posted by Ross M:
A great piece of work, MMD - thanks for the effort. :cool:

RossIndeed! Great work, MMD. It's much appreciated.

[ 01-26-2005, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Wiley Baggins ]

[mmd]

Tad, there is no mention of Mr. Lord that I can recall in the recent book about the Huckins Yacht Co. I spend a brief few hours with Cindy Purcell (Pembroke's grand-daughter) and her husband talking about the book, the boats, and Mr. Huckins, and there was no allusion to outside influences. However, many designers are quite comfortable with allowing the perception that their "children" are the product of immaculate conception, when in actual fact the "child's" complexion should rightfully be plaid. :eek:

Except for me and you, of course! ;) :D

[rbgarr]

Tad and Michael-

In 'Naval Architecture...' Lindsay Lord has a section on generating lines by formula. He says the Huckins "Quadraconic" formula is a case of "much refinement through years of trial and error in the famous Fairform Flyers. By judicious application of logical equations to the development of the more important running lines of a known hull, good similitude is retained throughout a range of sizes, and assures predictable performance." (p. 77)

Perehaps he's suggesting the years of refinement were Huckins', but the equations for scaling may have been a contribution from others or more generally available (?)