Ok, lots to catch up with (the last few days have been busy!)...
And I did indeed spell Marinaut incorrectly in my heading.
Lots of great input here and I really appreciate it. It's very helpful to have feedback and how folks "feel" about the design.
So, at random, here are some more comments:
The transom door is not properly configured (thanks for pointing that out); I posted the drawing almost as soon as I received it and I did not notice how it had been drawn in. It will be on the outside of the transom and will open to the outside (toward the centerline). Since it will fit flush against the outside of the transom I don't feel like there's too much compromise in the watertight integrity of the aft cockpit bulkhead.
It is my considered opinion that in a power boat under about 28-feet in length that there isn't graceful a way to have a true self-bailing cockpit. You can't make the sides high enough to ensure a self-bailing cockpit without making the boat appear very slab-sided. And since builders want to sell boats they make them look nice. Most so-called self-bailing cockpits are only inches above the waterline, or maybe a foot at best. The argument I always hear for self-bailing decks is safety rather than convenience yet with two, three, or four people in the cockpit the scuppers are underwater. What about that theoretical breaking wave? Dump even 100 gallons (not much really, think about a 100-gallon aquarium) into the cockpit and you've exceeded the weight of four typical folks, the same ones that put the scuppers underwater. Now take on about 500 gallons of water from a wave (how much do you think it could dump in the cockpit if a wave crest breaks over the boat?) and on most "self-bailing" boats the scuppers will be "self-filling" versions. I think the best reason for what's called a self-bailing deck in most small boats is for convenience, you can wash the boat out and have the water run overboard (at least on some designs) and if it's raining hard it will drain overboard. Calling most designs self-bailing from a safety standpoint is misleading at best and downright untruthful in most cases.
I did make a change to the aft cabin door earlier but it's not reflected in the drawing. The door should swing to the starboard side (which is wider) to allow it to fully open against the aft cabin bulkhead. You really only need cockpit space to swing the door, once it's open it's up against the bulkhead. I don't think a sliding door is the answer, I find that the ones that work easily are a menace and the ones that aren't are very difficult to slide. As a builder I cannot rely on everyone aboard, every time, pushing in a pin or flipping a lock to keep the sliding door from hurting someone. It's just going to get left undone some time and then someone is going to be injured. If it doesn't slide freely you'll fight it every time someone opens or closes the door. The door on the M215 is removable, I could carry that over to the M259 then one wouldn't even need full swinging room.
There is a sill at the bottom of the cabin door as there is in the M215 to keep water in the cockpit.
If I add a bracket to the M215 seven out of the nine molds would need to be changed (hull, topsides, cabin top, 'wings' x2, aft bulkhead, and liner (floor pan)). That probably would be less expensive than creating an all new boat but I'm not sure if the savings is worth what the end result would be.
Even on a stretched M215 I can not offer a stand-up head compartment (though it can be an enclosed one), I don't have the hull depth/cabin height needed to make that happen. That also means I can't offer a shower. The compartment would strictly be a sit-down-and-do-your-thing affair.
The beam of a stretched M215 would remain at just under 8' (the same as it is now) so the dinette would be the same 2-person set up. There's no way (I can think of in an acceptable arrangement) to come up with a 4-person dinette at that beam.
I still don't see the allure of a bracket. If I'm going to have to change the hull mold and deck mold anyway I'd just as soon leave the transom as it is and add the length to the hull. That would be even less expensive than redoing the transom to accommodate a bracket.
Brackets came into popularity when builders that already had molds with full transoms wanted to add an outboard version. They have not been used (by builders) to add to an existing outboard boat with an existing motorwell.
On the M259 I can do a single with the transom door at 24' 6", what I can't get is twins with a transom door at 24' 6" and that's my dilemma. Is adding 18" to the boat worth it to accommodate twin engines? This is mostly, though not completely, a psychological thing. Somehow a 24-foot trailerable boat (or even a 25-footer) seems more attractive than a 26-footer to a lot of folks (I'm not sure I'm exempt here). The cost difference, I don't believe, would be the largest factor.
The shape of the sides of the M259 at the stern is not set yet. I have conflicting desires there; one is for looks (a nice sloping profile from the sheer to the top of the engine platform), the other is for access (the sides cutaway; vertical from the sheer to the top of the engine platform). However we do it there will be handholds for ingress and egress from the water or from a dinghy.
That's it for now...thanks again.
Les
to keep shower water out of the toilet).