On a boat like this I would think you could leave a lot more keel intact if you want with twin outboards because they would get “clean” water but purely armchair knowledge on the subject. Assuming you kept speed goals reasonable so not to keel walk badly two moderate size outboards like even 90s might be feasible for a 18-20 knot cruise
Depends on how much keel is there. Two good reasons I can think of are 1. reduction of wetted surface for better speed and fuel economy and 2. handling. With props that turn having a keel only gives you something to trip over. In the case of the Dyer I don't see much to trim, its mostly slack bilges with a little bump for a keel. It's already halfway between a built down and a low deadrise hull. I don't see any worthwhile way to trim that for either case. If it was a big skeg built hull as on a modern lobster boat then cutting off most of the keel will reduce wetted surface. The Bar Harbor 39 comes to mind.I've asked that same question but never have got a good response - ie with twins why must the keel be so cropped or at all. I mean even twin inboard V hulls have keels.
Yes, if you were building a bunch of them then yes, model it in 3D and analyze trim and try to predict performance. Tiara and Hinckley and MJM and Back Cove and others are now offering outboards as options. A lot easier for them to do this because they are starting with modified deep vee hulls with shaft or pod drives and designed for planing. Also, they were designed in 3D with marine architecture software so once that model is built on the computer it is pretty easy to modify and predict performance. Someone somewhere may have modeled the Dyer but I doubt it. Maybe Tad could enlighten us when he reads thisI would think that a prototype would have to be built before production to get the weight placement right. Your moving a heavy engine that is mid-ship to the stern. I think Hinckley is modifing some of there inboard boats to outboard. May have to move the fuel tank to account for the weight distribution change.
I'm no navel architect.
The hardtop is pretty tall, I'm 6' and it is plenty tall for me. Tad might have actual headroom on this standard option done by them in 1993.Just took another look at your configuration and realized your soft top looks to be 12" higher than my hard top, the raised deck may not work for me.
Man this one is nice as isI was thinking twin 150, but then considered the weight aspect. 150 mercury is 95 lbs heavier than the 115.
Chortle, thanks for this reference. I'll have to take some measurements again. I seem to recall I measured 6'-3" or 6'-4".