Anyone Build or Own a Narai Mk II?

[Allen Bosely]

Has anyone here built, owned or are familiar with the Narai Mk II?

There's a good bit of info and pics of the Narai Mk IV out there, but not much about the Mk II.

Which is of course the one I'm interested in wouldn't you know!

Trying to learn some about how the Tangaroa Mk IV & Narai Mk II (not interested in the Narai Mk IV to big & elaborate) compare. I mean I know some of the basic dimensions of course.

One of the things I like about the Narai Mk II over the Tangaroa Mk IV is the useful load. Not so much the extra 4' of length, tho the length is connected to the useful load.

Just thinking that be the time I get which ever one I build loaded as a live aboard and or loaded for cruising where supplies aren't readily available, it will be somewhat heavy.

Tangaroa is listed as 4400lbs bare & 3300 useful load vs Narai Mk II at 6600lbs bare & 6600 useful load. I thought about stretching the Tangaroa hulls 2' as Hanneke said could be done on the Tanenui.

I think I would prefer a little bigger boat not loaded to the max and not sitting below her lines if possible.

She'll handle nicer and be faster that way.

Want to optimize it for a couple to live aboard or at least semi live aboard. Have room for my sister, her husband and 5 kids (5-13 yrs) to stay on board for 2-3 nights at a time. And have room in other hull for a couple to stay for a week or two.

My heart says Narai Mk II! My brain is trying to weigh out the positive vs negatives. I know The Narai will cost more to build, but don't think too awfully much more.

If I g for the Tangaroa Mk IV, I'll build her with the beams on top of deck & not with troughs. That saves some weight & 12 sheets of plywood.

Either one will get Tiki style crossbeams/lashings and beam 3 not across deck but like the Tiki 38 and extend the cabin aft to beam 4.

So, any input about the Narai Mk II?

Cheers, Allen

[Don Brazier]

Hi Allen
I have not owned or sailed on a Narai II but have friends who sailed a Tangaroa MK IV named "Mau " from England to the Pacific where they lived on board and sailed for about eleven years. I have spent time on this couple's boat and while adequate for a couple to live aboard there is not a lot of space , and if you are planning on having relatives and their children on board at times things may be a bit tight.
A Tangaroa IV with beams on deck and not in troughs would help, and I have known a Narai IV called Blue Moon which did the same thing giving a lot more room and comfort.
In terms of a little extra speed and load carrying the Narai II would be better than the Tangaroa. However one must always guard against filling up the extra space with things you don't really need.
When building don't be tempted to over build or use heavier timber and ply than you need to.
Methylated spirits is great for cleaning tools etc after using epoxy and much less toxic than some of the solvents on the market. I found a router a useful tool to quickly round the sharp right angle edge of exposed timbers making for a better finish. Stringer timbers bought as 6x1 inch rather than 3x1 inch , then run longitudinally through a table saw at an angle gives you horizontal tops to stringers inside which look better , are easier to clean and don't act as water traps.
I built and sail a Narai IV .
Good luck with your decision making and building
Don

[Allen Bosely]

Hi Don,
How would lengthening the Tangaroa Mk IV 2'-6"/76cm change the picture, as far as room?

For family onboard it would only be for a couple nights at a time.

Do you know how the Narai Mk II compares to the Narai Mk IV?
Curious as to what's different?

I mean I know the Mk IV has taller free board & that makes it wider & longer, has the beams in troughs, but what else is different? Any idea!

I do like the greater useful load of the Mk II over the Tangaroa Mk IV.

What's the measurement from bottom of keel to deck on the Mk IV?

It's not on the Tangaroa Mk IV study plans either. But found out it is 4' 10" from Gerald.

But don't know the measurement on the Narai Mk II either.

I would sure like to learn a bit more about the Narai Mk II, but don't know where to find it.

I've read the back issues of Sailorman & SeaPeople. Actually have them saved on my computer.

Cheers, Allen

[Budget Boater]

The main difference between the MKII and MKIV is interior volume. The decks of the MKII are lower than on the MKIV, giving less interior space, especially headroom over the bunks and volume at shoulder level.

The difference in payload is due mostly to the weight of the extra materials used to create more volume in the MKIV which is subtracted from the payload.

Increasing the length will simply add more floor space and allow for certain areas to be roomier in length, but not in headroom/shoulder room. By making the hulls longer, you are adding weight, material cost, and complexity - not necessarily a good thing, but not bad either.

One must weigh the pros, cons, costs, and associated aggravation with making hulls longer, versus building a bigger boat to start with, i.e.: why lengthen a Tangaroa (along with the extra cost in materials, weight, and aggravation), when you can just build a Narai instead, which is essentially little more than a longer Tangaroa? You are not going to save time or money building a longer Tangaroa versus a Narai, so it boils down to what you like more.

[Allen Bosely]

Ok thanks BB, that's what I was wondering about.
I also am curious about the empty weight listed for the Tangaroa Mk IV & Narai Mk II. The additional weight comes from being longer and 'taller'
as in from bottom of keel to top of deck.
If I understand it correctly, the Narai Mk II hull is taller so with the same headroom as Tangaroa the floor is wider because it's higher from keel, correct?

It sounds like the Narai Mk II is really what I want. As lengthening the Tangaroa won't give me the wider floor & wider hull (at upper cabin) that the Narai Mk II will.

The main problem is that the dimensions of the hulls aren't given anywhere other than the plans.
So that makes it a bit more difficult to choose which design if one is deciding between two that are somewhat similar in size.

Again, if I understand correctly, the Narai Mk II is basically a larger version of the Tangaroa Mk IV, with beams mounted on decks, basically the same structural design ie... stringer sizes, ply thickness etc... Then that's what I'll build.

I would really prefer not to make any major changes if possible.

Thanks again, this helps a lot.

What is the dimension from bottom of keel to top of deck on the Narai Mk IV? I know the Mk II deck isn't raised like the Mk IV. Just trying to get an idea of the hull height of the Mk II.

Cheers, Allen

[Budget Boater]

Simply, the difference in weight is due to the extra materials required to build.

The floor is not necessarily wider. If it is, then the difference will be negligible - maybe a couple of inches at most. You must remember that the starting width at the keel (in a V-shaped hull) is the biggest determining factor in floor width. Cats with rounded bilges have wider floors because their bottoms are flatter and achieve near full width much lower. This is not so with most V-shaped hulls, including Wharrams. Having been on Tangaroas, Narais, and Tiki 38s, the floor widths are very similar. If you are looking for "floor space", then a Wharram might not suit you.

It seems as if you are attempting to derive something from a Wharram that was never really achievable. The MKIV's were created for good reasons, in that you increase interior volume (headroom above bunks and at the shoulders when standing) while still keeping with the traditions of good hull form below the waterline, and while barely increasing overall freeboard (windage) . But the floor space never changed, nor did the volume below the bunks. All of the increases are UP, where most people wanted it, so that you don't feel as if you are living/sleeping in a cave.

Basically, the Narai MKII is a stretched Tagaroa MKII. The Narai MKIV is a stretched Tangaroa MKIV

5' - 8 3/4" is the dimension at the center of the hull, as measured from the bottom of the second layer of keel to the bottom of the deck. This is not indicative of headroom, nor interior volume since the floor/bunks are at some level above the bottom of this dimension.

Allen Bosely said:

Ok thanks BB, that's what I was wondering about.
I also am curious about the empty weight listed for the Tangaroa Mk IV & Narai Mk II. The additional weight comes from being longer and 'taller'
as in from bottom of keel to top of deck.
If I understand it correctly, the Narai Mk II hull is taller so with the same headroom as Tangaroa the floor is wider because it's higher from keel, correct?

It sounds like the Narai Mk II is really what I want. As lengthening the Tangaroa won't give me the wider floor & wider hull (at upper cabin) that the Narai Mk II will.

The main problem is that the dimensions of the hulls aren't given anywhere other than the plans.
So that makes it a bit more difficult to choose which design if one is deciding between two that are somewhat similar in size.

Again, if I understand correctly, the Narai Mk II is basically a larger version of the Tangaroa Mk IV, with beams mounted on decks, basically the same structural design ie... stringer sizes, ply thickness etc... Then that's what I'll build.

I would really prefer not to make any major changes if possible.

Thanks again, this helps a lot.

What is the dimension from bottom of keel to top of deck on the Narai Mk IV? I know the Mk II deck isn't raised like the Mk IV. Just trying to get an idea of the hull height of the Mk II.

Cheers, Allen

[Allen Bosely]

I'm not trying to make a Wharram into something different. Just trying to get a mental picture of size comparisons.

Reason I asked about the width of the floor is wondered if the higher sides (I'm guessing the Narai Mk II is taller from bottom of keel to top of deck)  and the same amount of headroom meant that the floor was raised a few inches and would be a bit wider since the V of the hull gets wider as going higher above the floor. It was just a curiosity question, not a concern.

I'm asking questions to get a mental picture of relative sizes/dimensions as opposed to looking at a couple drawings with a few basic dimensions. If I saw drawings with basic dimensions of the hulls it would be a couple minutes and would understand the differences. Asking questions makes me sound like I'm being critical or wanting something different than what they are, but not intended that way at all.

Just trying to grasp visually the differences between them with out seeing pics or drawings. :-)

There are three things I would really like. Forever Young was built with all 3.

1) Beams mounted on deck so don't need troughs.

2) Beam 3, not go all the way across hulls, mounted  & lashed on inside edge of hulls like Tiki 38.

3) Since beam 3 doesn't go across hulls cabin can be extended aft closer to beam 4.

Don't know if  2 & 3 can be done on the Mk II tho.

I like the look of the beams mounted on top of deck with the lashing upgrade and bulwarks, it saves weight, building time & some cost of plywood, though the bulwarks would use some that would have went to troughs.

I'm certainly not saying that troughs are a bad thing. Just that I like the beams set on top of decks. Which can/has been done on the Tangaroa and is designed that way on the Mk II.

Any other information about Narai Mk II & Tangaroa Mk IV anyone can give I would appreciate it. 

Cheers, Allen

[Budget Boater]

Ok. Gotcha.

The floor will not be raised going from MKII to MKIV. The modifications are at the deck level, which is why the MKIVs have beam troughs (unless you eliminate them as I am doing.)

Considering that the Narai MKII is available with the Tiki wingsail rig, I can only imagine that item 2 is part of the modified rig plan, and item 3 is possible if you do the modification yourself.

Allen Bosely said:

I'm not trying to make a Wharram into something different. Just trying to get a mental picture of size comparisons.

Reason I asked about the width of the floor is wondered if the higher sides (I'm guessing the Narai Mk II is taller from bottom of keel to top of deck)  and the same amount of headroom meant that the floor was raised a few inches and would be a bit wider since the V of the hull gets wider as going higher above the floor. It was just a curiosity question, not a concern.

I'm asking questions to get a mental picture of relative sizes/dimensions as opposed to looking at a couple drawings with a few basic dimensions. If I saw drawings with basic dimensions of the hulls it would be a couple minutes and would understand the differences. Asking questions makes me sound like I'm being critical or wanting something different than what they are, but not intended that way at all.

Just trying to grasp visually the differences between them with out seeing pics or drawings. :-)

There are three things I would really like. Forever Young was built with all 3.

1) Beams mounted on deck so don't need troughs.

2) Beam 3, not go all the way across hulls, mounted  & lashed on inside edge of hulls like Tiki 38.

3) Since beam 3 doesn't go across hulls cabin can be extended aft closer to beam 4.

Don't know if  2 & 3 can be done on the Mk II tho.

I like the look of the beams mounted on top of deck with the lashing upgrade and bulwarks, it saves weight, building time & some cost of plywood, though the bulwarks would use some that would have went to troughs.

I'm certainly not saying that troughs are a bad thing. Just that I like the beams set on top of decks. Which can/has been done on the Tangaroa and is designed that way on the Mk II.

Any other information about Narai Mk II & Tangaroa Mk IV anyone can give I would appreciate it. 

Cheers, Allen

[Allen Bosely]

OK, thanks BB I think I'm finally catching up! lol  BTW, what is your name?

The Mk II is listed as having 6' 2" headroom and Mk IV 7' headroom. Then the Mk IV (stock) has about 10" more headroom in the bunks fore and aft of the cabins (if cabin ceilings are the same height above the decks) and better access if crossbeams are mounted on top of deck. Correct?

If that's correct, approx what is the height above the fore & aft bunks on the stock Mk IV, not counting the beam since it would on top of deck.

Well after going round and round in my head, it seems like what I want is either a Mk IV with beams mounted on decks and add bulwarks or a Mk II and raise the deck. On either I would use Tiki style crossbeams/lashings and widen the beam.

If I do the this, would there be any advantage to buying Mk IV plans over Mk II plans?

I can use Mk II plans and raise the decks to the same height as the Mk IV. I wouldn't really gain anything by buying Mk IV plans as I won't be building Mk IV beams or troughs & don't need the Mk IV plans just to raise the decks.

Not trying to be a tight a$$ but the difference in the plans is $460 that can go towards materials. I don't think the Mk IV plans will have anything that will really apply to my project from what I understand, showing the raised decks. Don't need the drawings for that. I'd rather put the $460 towards the Upgrade Plan Package 2 and Wingsail drawings.

Is there anything I would really gain from the Mk IV plans?

Cheers, Allen

 

[Budget Boater]

Head room is gained because as the decks are raised, so are the coach roofs. This allows the profiles of the MKII and the MKIV to look generally the same. (If the decks are raised, but not the coach roofs, then you would have a very low profile coach that might look a little funny. In my case, because I am using lashed Tiki46 type beams on deck, I will keep the profile of the coach roofs lower (to about 6/3" headroom) to achieve a profile that suits the changes I am making.)

Headroom over the stock bunk locations would be about 3'6", not including the thickness of the cushions.

The MKIV has bulwarks. They are not eliminated from the design.

I have never looked at a set of MKII plans, so I cannot say with any certainty what may or may not be different between the two. I do know that because of the higher profile of the MKIV, that the rudders will be longer, and the rigging plan would be slightly different, among other things I am sure. I understand the $$ thing, because I am a tight  ass. I will only be using 3 1/2 pages of the plans for my build as the remainder will not be necessary considering my changes. But for me, to have the MKIV plans it is less figuring to make it right. I will save well over $460 in aggravation.

[Allen Bosely]

At 3' 6" in the bunks, that makes that nice & roomy feeling.

Yes, that's true, the coach roofs would go the same amount higher as the decks went. Or would on stock Mk IV, makes sense.

I'll be buying the Wingsail drawings cover both the Mk II and Mk IV, so that will get me the rigging info.

I'm kinda leaning towards the Mk II plans as I'll probably just end up raising the deck some & will lengthen the rudder accordingly.

Your help here has been most appreciated! Has cleared up some lingering questions & things I couldn't quite figure out or find the info anywhere. Thanks so much!

Cheers, Allen

[Don Brazier]

BB has made some good points and I like his planned beam arrangement and centre cabin top level.
Incidentally the measurement of the deck level of the Narai I and II was 5 feet and 3/4 inches from the plan compared with the 5 feet 8 and 3/4 inches for the Narai IV
As you may have seen on the Narai IV study plan James calculates an increase total space inside of 150 cubic feet of the Narai IV over the Narai II .
The Narai IV has a slightly wider VEE hull amidships and the 7 feet max hull beam is quite a lot more than the 6 feet 2 Narai II or the 5 feet 8 inch Tangaroa IV.
I made my cabin sides more like the Tikis fixing them to the Gunnel along th shear line with extra ply knees inside . This gives an even greater feeling of space inside.
You mentioned the possibilty of using a shorter beam for beam 3 , the schooner wing sail rig for the Narai IV and II makes no allowance for that and would probably be best discussed with Hanneke.
With regard to plans , if you decide on the raised decks , I would agree with BB , it is not worth the hassle of modifying the older Narai II ones
cheers
Don

[Allen Bosely]

Don, thanks for the info, the dimensional differences there really help me 'see' the comparative sizes. Now that I better understand the size relationship of the three, I know that the Narai Mk IV is definably the one for me.

I misunderstood the design relationship of the Mk IV to Mk II. I was under the mistaken impression that the Mk IV was a completely different design. I will get Mk IV plans, thanks for the input there also.

It's really great that BB is leading the way building a Mk IV with beams mounted on deck and eliminating the beam troughs. That he has rebuild a Tangaroa Mk IV, built a Tiki 30 and 38  is a really great asset as he understands the structures and designs of both Tiki and Classic Class boats.

Plus he thinks "out of the box" which also is helpful. I would like to use his beam design and structural changes to mount and lash them also if possible.

As far as the modification of beam 3 not going across the hulls like the Tiki 38 (just guessing here) but think it will be doable Since it's similar to the T38. Dan Kunz said that JWD did the drawing for the mod on Forever Young. But will definably ask Hanneke about it. Certainly not a modification to just guess if it's a structurally sound change to make!

Cheers, Allen