| FWIW I owned one of the originals, a Fjordling 17 made by Fjord
Boats in Norway back in 1966. It's still in the family but nowadays
owned by my son. During it's life it has had just two engines, for
the first twenty years a Merc1100 110 hp and since a couple of
years a similiar 115hp. The boat is nice and behaves very well in
most weather conditions. The boat will stand more abuse than the
driver.
It is however a mid -60s design and a lot has been learnt since then
on deep-V hull design. I don't think the tunnel gives any better
end-result than what you can get on a well designed hull today without
it. It will in fact make planing off a bit slower as the tunnel has to
empty first. In other words not a skiing boat.
The hull seems to take almost as much power as you care to mount,
altough recommended power was 40 to 100 hp the Fjordlings were raced
back in the 60s with twin 110hp outboards on them.
If it is of any interest, this is what I know about the history
of the design: The hull was designed in 1964/65 by Jan Linge, a
well known Norwegian naval architect at that time mainly involved a with
designing fast patrol craft for the Norwegian navy. The Fjord yard got
interested and tought they might sell a couple of dozens of the design
if they were lucky. About 1972 they had sold 1200! Then they had some
disagreement with Mr Linge and production ceased. Sometimes late
in the seventies the design was bought by another company and
production restarted (There always was just one hull sized, the
17' one) but it never become the success it once was.
So now somone is trying again....
BTW Jan Linge went on designing pleasure craft and there is a number
of Norwegian boats having a model name ending in ...ling as an indication
of that.
-jcl
|
| RE: .1,
Thanks for your impressions. It seems pretty impresive for such a small
boat, though I wouldn't think as much of a difference would be felt the
larger one got.
The main reason for the tunnel design is to give more stability at rest
and slow speeds -- you can imagine that 14' deep-V wouldn't have much
stability at all! As it is, the tunnel filled effectively provides a
floating "bottom" which is close to 3' wide, and thus a step away from the
centerline doesn't tend to tip her like a drunken dory.
My own interest is in a small deep-V which can handle some speed in waves
without tiring the driver too rapidly by being mercilessly pounded at each
impact on a wave.
>>> I don't think the tunnel gives any better end-result than what you
>>> can get on a well designed hull today without it. It will in fact
>>> make planing off a bit slower as the tunnel has to empty first.
Maybe they've improved this part of the design. I found it absolutely
impossible to detect any lag from tunnel water failing to exit; there's a
2" dia vent forward, and a lot of air sucks down through it when you hit
the gas. It is amusing to gun the boat in reverse from a stop, and watch
the fountain of water spew from the vent; very confusing to those who may
be watching!
J.
|