The drawings in this section are working drawings for the "demonstration" boat of the Fladlien & Associates M-Class design development program. They show what a modern M-boat actually might be like. They are not just conceptual drawings.
The arrangement plans shown are only a sample of a large number of possibilities. All are somewhat tricky to work out, as the J Class found too, in that we are working with a long, narrow boat. This issue is even worse in ULDBs, which are shallow as well, whereas the M-boat has depth (and therefore headroom) in its favor. But it turns out to be quite possible to work the arrangement plan out, starting from whatever premise one wants. At various times we worked from the premise of getting the most accommodations in (you can get up to about 12), of spreading things out through the boat, or - what we ended up with for these drawings - having good accommodations for an owner, a nice galley, a shower, and various other features which will be different from one arrangement design to the next. Here's what we ended up with...
Figure 1 is actually the newest version, and began as a result of spending a little time on a J boat. It was clear that, for boats which emphasize long passages to the next event, or which do a lot of cruising, a more complete and nicer crew area would be very important. While we can't match, in this boat, the roominess of a J, we certainly can make a more private and complete crew area, allowing for a permanent crew of 3, and a couple of additional crew on long deliveries. The result is a crew area with its own head, an enclosed quarters for the professional captain, including a small desk, and a greatly increased space for personal items and stowage for gear. There is some additional weight involved in this design, though Cyndel has managed to get the heaviest items close to the center of the boat, and the accommodation requirements in the rule would have to be modified to keep this arrangement plan on an equal performance footing with the two others on this page. This arrangement also features enclosed multiple berths for guests, and a sail stowage locker in the center of the boat, accessible from on deck to minimize the presence of sails coming below (though spinnakers will still have to do so when actually racing). Finally, we gave up some excess head room, which is in good supply on an M boat, to get more room for tankage.
Figure 2 is the most conventional design, with a more-or-less symmetrical owner's cabin aft, heads and shower forward of that, and additional guest berths further forward, with finally a dining area and then a limited forward crew's area. This arrangement has the one drawback that the galley area is spread out fore and aft (although it might be considered a feature for those who like elbow room and counterspace). Much earlier we had the inspiration for an aft galley with working space on both sides, but had not pursued that concept any further. Figure 3 shows arrangement 15d, which took that concept and worked out the problem sufficiently that a good and useable interior arrangement resulted. This arrangement features a very asymmetrical but nice owner's area, this time with the galley just forward to starboard, (a bonus for owner's who enjoy cooking) and the navigation area along the port side of the boat with an off-center passageway intervening.
Both the Figure 2 and 3 arrangements have a folding table and removable, but securely anchored, chairs. When the chairs are removed and the table folded, a good-sized working area is available for packing spinnakers and even folding jibs. When cruising, the tables are opened fully and the chairs are anchored in place, an arrangement Cyndel came up with to make a more comfortable eating area.
In each of these arrangements, we were partially influenced by the presence of a very large generator, as well as the engine. We wanted to keep these away from the owner's cabin, and of course, keep them as low and as much in the middle of the boat as possible to prevent them from causing a slow and very uncomfortable ride when the boat is heading into a seaway, whether under sail or power. Those considerations render a “normal” kind of interior – one with a long passageway more or less in the center of the boat – impractical here.
Figure 4 shows two transom configurations for the demo boat, Hull 66F2. It addresses the issue of traditional versus forward-sloping transom, which was actually originally raised by one of our readers. From an artistic or appearance standpoint, there is no simple answer to which is better; it is definitely a matter of preference. Classically there is a difference in weight and weight distribution, clearly favoring the "reverse" or forward-sloping transom. While it is not possible to completely eliminate that advantage, by requiring a long stern overhang, and specifying limits for the transom angles, it is possible to greatly reduce the advantage of one transom over the other. This we have done. Nevertheless, the "reverse" transom is still favored.
What can not be seen readily is the profound effect that the counter angle chosen has on the appearance of the transom, regardless of which version is used. Each designer and his/her customer will have to work through that, but at least they can do so with the least consequence possible in terms of weight distribution. The difference is small enough that I, as a designer, would make my selection on appearance preference, not on a basis of weight distribution. Please keep in mind though, that a different counter angle would greatly alter the impression made by either configuration, but especially by the traditional transom.