Slat idea sounds interesting. If access to the stowage is thru the top would that still work? Simpler is another piece of ply under the seat cushion that could be pulled across the aisle, or for access in sail mode the piece could be lifted up like a lid to get to the lockers.
Seatback lockers on one side could be dedicated to holding the bedding when in settee mode. That seat back could be slid down (maybe with the cushions velcroed on) to have the stow area open while bunking and make the cross asile piece less wide and rectangular, but support would be needed with added cross pieces. Or the front vertical of the settee could be designed to pull out for fore and aft support using the cabin sole.
338's q-berth is much lower that the existing settees allowing the unfortunate to raise the knees in a very tight area anyway. Space for the occupant to insert self has to be provided. That brings the q-berth out a bit into the cabin and also suggests that the foot of the companionway not be under the double bunk. Access up nad down via the ladder should planned for when the double is set up.
This is a good arguement for an athwartship double. If you are under 5'7", let's say, it may work great. Taller folk will need room nearly hull to hullside, and that would make upright lockers on both side not possible, or you'd have to empty them for sleeping. There is also the amount of room UP you need for the mattress cushions, feet, and raising the head.
Not willing to loose a cubic inch of stowage, I opted to fore and aft body arrangements where generally you have the central full height of the cabin. Some small boat interiors have the V-berth area as the sole double bunking possibility. I think Flicka, which has comprable interior volume, is one. Now what I'm going to end up with on 338 doesn't matter here. BUT
I've just about convinced self for various reasons to push the whole double bunk issue forward and bring the existing V-berth height into the cabin. I'm negotiating with self on laminating a true arch on the cabin side of the main bulkhead that would widen the width at bunk/seat level. It would still include the crossbeam. I feel the mast could use the support there anyway as it is but half supported by the compression beam. Would have to alter what is already an alteration. That's a bummer.
Looking out of the windows while seated at the dinette/chart table is absolutely necessary imco for cruising. Doing that raises the dinette seat to near the same height as the V-berth. Won't argue with the deeper lockers under the seats. The galley across the aisle at the companionway might be operable while sitting higher up. I like Kurt's full counter, 338's would be on the port side. It would allow a number of configurations including side access drawers and lockers, even a workbench. Altho self would not have headroom. And. perhaps, a remaining seat at the original level for wedging into in rough weather. And aesthetically having it as an open space in all that proposed buildup.
Anyway, athwartships might give you access to the head between the V-berths AND the foot of the ladder for weekending in essentially a traditional Ariel setup. Privacy in the head area is almost the most important consideration when both sexes are aboard. And the captain needs to get up on deck in a jiffy. If you decide not to have a shower ala franco in the V, maybe a sink is a good compromise.
Reply With Quote