Centre v aft cockpit?

In my humble opinion, a central cockpit suits better a bigger yacht, perhaps 40ft and upwards. I have a Moody 33S (not many around) which is the aft cockpit version of the popular Moody 33. The main cabin area is very comfortable and rather large with an additional double berth cabin inside, aft of the main cabin and at the same time, the boat has a large cockpit. However, the aft cabin version must be popular with families with kids.
 
Well we have a CC Seahawk - assume they all are.
It would be a bit of a pain in Greece or other places where you step off the stern onto the quay.

However, you do have the main sheet out of the cockpit and very handy for the helm.
You do have good visibility and going forward, which isnt often necessary, is not difficult.
Being high means that you are unlikely to get green that far over the front and if the following sea threatens the cockpit you have a whole lot of other problems.

Below decks you have good space and height. The engine is accessible.
The cockpit locker is huge

Our previous boat was an Achilles where you got wet thinking about going sailing.

I shall miss her
 
Gwylan said:
Well we have a CC Seahawk - assume they all are.
It would be a bit of a pain in Greece or other places where you step off the stern onto the quay.

However, you do have the main sheet out of the cockpit and very handy for the helm.
You do have good visibility and going forward, which isnt often necessary, is not difficult.
Being high means that you are unlikely to get green that far over the front and if the following sea threatens the cockpit you have a whole lot of other problems.

Below decks you have good space and height. The engine is accessible.
The cockpit locker is huge

Our previous boat was an Achilles where you got wet thinking about going sailing.

I shall miss her
Click to expand...
A Seahawk was my dream boat - never got to sail one and by the time I moved up to a bigger boat it was all about stern-to mooring and diving off the sugar-scoop. Aft cockpit boats’ cockpits are just as high now with the double cabins below - and the self draining instantly built in by the open sterns.
 
If you are interested in sailing long distances over oceans, lots of people these day carry a Jordan series drogue. These reputedly work particularly well with CC boats. Large following seas in a situation where you are running before a storm with the JSD deployed only making 1.5-2 kts means breaking water is likely over the stern. The CC leaves you a little further away from the action going on at the rear of the boat?
 
RupertW said:
A Seahawk was my dream boat - never got to sail one and by the time I moved up to a bigger boat it was all about stern-to mooring and diving off the sugar-scoop. Aft cockpit boats’ cockpits are just as high now with the double cabins below - and the self draining instantly built in by the open sterns.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was keen on a Seahawk too, back in the 1980s, and was about to place an order for one. Fortunately, we went for a demo sail first. It was a very strange boat, and we really felt perched and vulnerable in the cockpit. The descent into the cabin was like going down into a coal cellar. We bought a Westerly Corsair instead.

Current aft cockpit boats have much lower cockpits, there's rarely much room above the aft berths directly below the cockpit floor.
 
How does stability & performance of CC compare with AC. I would expect that a centre cockpit design would need a higher boom. That would result in less sail area, or a sail plan that was higher, with a resulting c of g higher. Although I am not sure if it is much. If the crew were , say, 4ft higher, then the boom would be correspondingly so. However, any increase in height of cog, if accompanied with the same sail area, would increase turning moment- would it not?
Therefore, one might expect that with a centre cockpit, reduced performance due to, either, less sail area, or lower stability
Have I got that right?

Visibility under the genoa must be very poor compared to AC, unless the foot was cut very high, with further loss of performance, & increased height of c of g. At least with aft cockpit one can lean over the side deck & squint down the side under the sail.
I have never fancied sailing a cc boat but being healed over must give the crew a feeling of being about to be tipped into the sea until used to it. Unnerving for inexperienced sailors, perhaps. Does that happen?
 
Last edited:
Daydream believer said:
How does stability & performance of CC compare with AC.....................Visibility under the genoa must be very poor compared to AC, unless the foot was cut very high, with further loss of performance, & increased height of c of g. At least with aft cockpit one can lean over the side deck & squint down the side under the sail.
Click to expand...

Can only answer for my boat, Moody 376. Here are the surveyors comments about stability -

fin and skeg hull form and of moderate displacement, with a double spreader sloop rig. This has proved to be a popular class of yacht, and with her SA/D (sail area/displacement ratio) of 16.22 and an almost 40% ballast ratio is very suitable for blue water use. Although the design predates the RCD (Recreational Craft Directive) requirements she should properly be compared with designs in RCD Category ‘A’ Ocean

The cockpit doesn't perch above the deck like a double decker bus, it's recessed into the engine bay so has normal height of coamings above side deck so no different to aft cockpit when looking under genoa.
 
Daydream believer said:
How does stability & performance of CC compare with AC. I would expect that a centre cockpit design would need a higher boom. That would result in less sail area, or a sail plan that was higher, with a resulting c of g higher. Although I am not sure if it is much. If the crew were , say, 4ft higher, then the boom would be correspondingly so. However, any increase in height of cog, if accompanied with the same sail area, would increase turning moment- would it not?
Therefore, one might expect that with a centre cockpit, reduced performance due to, either, less sail area, or lower stability
Have I got that right?

Visibility under the genoa must be very poor compared to AC, unless the foot was cut very high, with further loss of performance, & increased height of c of g. At least with aft cockpit one can lean over the side deck & squint down the side under the sail.
I have never fancied sailing a cc boat but being healed over must give the crew a feeling of being about to be tipped into the sea until used to it. Unnerving for inexperienced sailors, perhaps. Does that happen?
Click to expand...
Our own CC Trintella 44 has a 41% ballast ratio. Boom is no higher than any comparable AC boat of the same length.
 
Perhaps it's that more modern boats just give the impression of cockpit height. ie Halberg 40c & Gunfleet43 & I have seen some that look as though the crew are perched very high. Possibly just an incorrect perception :confused:
 
a few years ago, I was choosing between a moody 38 and an S38. The main factor was the better sailing performance of the s38 with a lower Coe and a less exposed cockpit
 
Crikey! Despite liking CC boats, i’ve just bought an aft cockpit 41 footer as the price was right. This thread is making me think I’ve made the wrong choice! ;):oops::ROFLMAO:
 
This is the Rival 41C - 41' LOA centre cockpit. Peter Brett, the designer, managed to incorporate the centre cockpit into the line of the coach roof so that the cockpit sits low. The disadvantage is that the passageway from the saloon to the aft cabin is low. Having sailed a few modern hulls of the same length, aft cockpits, the twin or single aft cabins are easier to access but a bit more awkward to get into the bunk. I have two bunks in the aft cabin and heads, full standing headroom down the sides of the bunks unless the infill is inserted.

Untitled by Rival Sailor, on Flickr

Untitled by Rival Sailor, on Flickr
 
Daydream believer said:
Perhaps it's that more modern boats just give the impression of cockpit height. ie Halberg 40c & Gunfleet43 & I have seen some that look as though the crew are perched very high. Possibly just an incorrect perception :confused:
Click to expand...
Some are certainly very high. My friend's Island Packet 46-ish feet boat is weird to sail in and the rolling motion unsettling compared to my 34. I haven't sailed in many CC boats but while some appear snug, such as the HR36, others such as earlier Oceanis CC designs look awkward.
 
I like our centre cockpit Westerly Pentland for sheer security. Also nice to have the rear cabin behind you in rowdy following seas. However my attempt to fit wind vane failed. Wind vanes don't really suit wheel steering and control lines running an extra distance to get past rear cabin causes a lot of friction issues. Not a niche problem at all. I thought of a Hydrovane but getting out of cockpit to walk past rear cabin to stern rail to adjust is a frightening thought.

Our more recent boat is traditional aft cockpit but round stern and very buoyant. I wouldn't want a sugar scoop stern boat in bad weather, just imagine hoving to a sea anchor astern with the scoop about to catch every breaking wave.
 
Daydream believer said:
Perhaps it's that more modern boats just give the impression of cockpit height. ie Halberg 40c & Gunfleet43 & I have seen some that look as though the crew are perched very high. Possibly just an incorrect perception :confused:
Click to expand...

I've just done a quick measure, cockpit floor is 123cm higher than cabin sole boards. I bet that's not much different in height to a modern aft cockpit boat with twin cabins/berths under cockpit.

I remember looking at one of the Westerly models, I think a Seahawk. The guy at the brokerage (M.Schmidt) used to work for Westerly and he said they sold more new boats ashore with walkway around when customers couldn't see how high they were perched.
 
oldmanofthehills said:
I like our centre cockpit Westerly Pentland for sheer security. Also nice to have the rear cabin behind you in rowdy following seas. However my attempt to fit wind vane failed. Wind vanes don't really suit wheel steering and control lines running an extra distance to get past rear cabin causes a lot of friction issues. Not a niche problem at all. I thought of a Hydrovane but getting out of cockpit to walk past rear cabin to stern rail to adjust is a frightening thought.

Our more recent boat is traditional aft cockpit but round stern and very buoyant. I wouldn't want a sugar scoop stern boat in bad weather, just imagine hoving to a sea anchor astern with the scoop about to catch every breaking wave.
Click to expand...


The Hydrovane has a remote course adjustment option
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top