Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Post-Classic Whalers
  170MT as a flats skiff

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   170MT as a flats skiff
BMR posted 05-25-2003 05:08 PM ET (US)   Profile for BMR  
Today, I amazed a friend of mine by running our 170 MT in about 14 to 16" of water. The grass was nearly sticking out of the water and we could go just about anywhere while on plane. I have fished many flats boats and once on plane, we could go just about anywhere these skinny water boats could. The only thing they do better was to get on plane in the shallow stuff. Perhaps tabs and a jack plate would cure that.

Unsinkablilty may not be needed in 2' of water, but it is nice at the boat ramp if you forget the plug!

jimh posted 05-26-2003 06:06 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
To avoid confusion, I would like to ask that you avoid using the expression "MT" to refer to the MONTAUK model. I know that Boston Whaler has in the past used similar expression in printed material where space was at a premium, such as in tables of price lists, but I sincerely feel that articles are much more readable if the author uses the full name of the model.

I don't think that typing a couple extra letters is too much of a burden, and it prevents any confusion. It also is an important feature in assuring that your article can be found using the search engine.

A search for "MONTAUK" will not find articles in which the expression "MT" is used exclusively.

This policy is also applicable to all models, and I have stated it many times. We strongly recommend avoiding any abbreviations associated with model names, and we encourage careful wording to insure accuracy in identifying which model is actually being discussed.

And bravo on your demonstratio of the thin water capabilities of the 170-MONTAUK hull.

BMR posted 05-26-2003 06:23 PM ET (US)     Profile for BMR    
Good point, I stand corrected.
Jarhead posted 05-26-2003 07:52 PM ET (US)     Profile for Jarhead  Send Email to Jarhead     
Jim...

Lighten up buddy..

jimh posted 05-26-2003 11:10 PM ET (US)     Profile for jimh  Send Email to jimh     
Jarhead,

We prefer to keep a little organization and consistency. It's kinda like how they run the Marine Corps.

This is not the Marine Corps, but we do aspire to a few standards and try to keep if from turning into a disorganized free-for-all run helter- skelter-style for old hippies from the sixties.

Come on over to the META-Forum and you take a few shots at me there.

--jimh
Publisher/Moderator

Jarhead posted 05-27-2003 08:12 AM ET (US)     Profile for Jarhead  Send Email to Jarhead     
Done :)
TampaDave posted 07-02-2005 06:39 PM ET (US)     Profile for TampaDave  Send Email to TampaDave     
The new model Montauk floats very shallow. Keeping weight down with the lighter, 2-stroke engine, and maybe not carrying more fuel than you need probably helps. Compared with your average bay boat, you have more windage. Poling the boat is easy when the wind is calm; it's a challenge at best in any sort of breeze. But it sure is nice for those open water crossings, both in terms of comfort, and the confidence that comes with riding in a Whaler. You can put a poling platform on it, but if you pole from the bow, you are still high enough off the water to spot fish if the sun is right, and the boat balances better.

I suppose if all I ever did was shallow water fishing, I wouldn't mind having a Hewes skiff. But when it came time to put money down, I didn't see the logic in paying $10 - 15K more for a boat that was less versatile, and that my family would refuse to ride in. Overall I've been satifisfied with the Montauk for flats fishing in Tampa Bay. Only two things I really want are a jack plate and a trolling motor.

TexasWhaler posted 07-03-2005 07:34 PM ET (US)     Profile for TexasWhaler  Send Email to TexasWhaler     
If your impressed with the shallow performance of a new Montauk, you should see a Classic Montauk in skinny water.
You'd swear it's a tunnel hull!

Sorry, didn't mean to mention a Classic here on post-Classic turf! ;-)

bsmotril posted 07-05-2005 10:25 AM ET (US)     Profile for bsmotril  Send Email to bsmotril     
Maybe my '66 is waterlogged, because I was not impressed with the draft of mine during my first outing this weekend. With a V4 Johnson 90HP, mine draws about 12" at rest, with the water level coming up to just below the motor well drain tube. Other than that shortcoming, it handled way better than I was expecting. Compared to the Conquest I used to have, the Sakonnet is like driving a go kart. BillS

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:


Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.