Egret is killing it!

[whichwaysup]

So, in my quest to continue to liven up the place, I am hereby poking our MBG folks.  

You guys are missing something.

 

I have at least 5 guys pinging me looking for nice 18 MAs.  They cant find any right now.  One of them is looking at an egret, so I have been doing a little research.  In every forum, post, facebook page, two themes come out over and over again:

 

1)  If you want a great general purpose (not technical poling skiff), the Egret and the MA are consistetntly rated as "best boats".   Egrets seem to get a slight nod over the MA based on fit/finish, but they have been doing it 10+ years longer.

2)  You cant find a used egret in good shape easily (at least I cant), but they seem to be pumping new ones out at a good clip.  The used ones make used MAs look dirt cheap.   

Someday I will buy a new flatsboat and it will be a general purpose version.   My only option as it stands will be to give Frank a call.  I like the MA lines better.   Most of us on the East Coast need the ability to deal with big water to get to our fishing grounds more than we need to pole miles of <10" flats.   But we want the fishability of low deadrise and walk around gunnels.

 

If MBG already has the reputation with the MA to compete with Egret, why not redesign the Redfisher with the legendary hull of the MA and take more of the market?   The redfisher is a great boat, absolutely no knocks against it, but why not combine the great fit and finish of the redfisher cap with the legendary chop eating hull of the MA and have the best of both worlds?   

I hate the idea that the reality is that eventually the MA will be completely extinct.  

 

[SouthernWake]

I agree with you but I do think bay boats and TPS has divided and nearly eliminated the flats boat market.

[geeviam]

1 hour ago, whichwaysup said:

If MBG already has the reputation with the MA to compete with Egret, why not redesign the Redfisher with the legendary hull of the MA and take more of the market?

Good topic Gus!

IMO, there is a way to broaden the market appeal for a MA/Egret class boat to fit nicely between the Bay Boat and Technical Poling Skiff.  Design a 19 or 20 footer with an inshore "flats boat" deck and cap layout, with center console and the driver sits on the rear deck as most of us here are used to and prefer.  Then also design a "freshwater/bass boat" deck and cap layout with twin windshields, twin bucket seats slightly lower in the boat ahead of the rear deck.  The most important feature is the hull design, which should be fast, but safe, with lifting strakes/chines, a pad on the keel, sharp drop forward vee entry like the MA, modified vee bottom for soft ride, no notched out transom pocket (better for jack plate addon), and no recessed trim tabs.  The best fishing feature on the hull, that the bass guys don't have, but would go nuts for, would be a silent, stealthy hull with no hull slap.  The chines need to be soft and rounded up front and run just below the waterline (when at rest) on the sides of the boat, to be super quiet when stalking fish while using the trolling motor or poling.  Integrated spray deflectors could be incorporated above the waterline on the sides as well, to keep the boat dry.  These features can be seen on some of the latest technical poling skiff designs.  The Egret has a great ride and cuts though the chop, but it's definitely not as good looking as the MA, and it's not a quiet hull, with its wide flat chines that slap up front.  Lastly, the boat has to handle big horsepower if the buyer wants it, to safely go fast and show off at the sand bar, or keep up with the other bass guys in a tournament.  It should also be light enough to run efficiently and float fairly shallow with a mid-size outboard too.  Wish I could be part of the team on a project such as this...  It could be marketed as the new MA or Redfisher, right?

[smilemaker]

Another aspect  that turns me off on many new boats is the fold down seating. I feel that all deck designs should have a total fishing design without folding  seats. They destroy rear deck fishing. Don't  trust them to step on. We need to see pure fishing boats again.

Maybe harder to sell but it is one reason I will keep my 04. 22TE forever. 

[geeviam]

4 hours ago, whichwaysup said:

But we want the fishability of low deadrise and walk around gunnels.

Also, forgot to mention beam.  For best ride, stability and performance without porpoising - the beam on a 19 ft boat in this class should be no more than 83".  The beam on a 20 ft boat in this class should be no more than 88".  Just my opinion.  These LOA to beam ratios are the same as the Maverick 18 HPX-V and the Egret 2011, and both of them run smooth, steady and fast.

Edited February 12, 2020 by geeviam
Revised beam numbers

[geeviam]

9 minutes ago, smilemaker said:

Another aspect  that turns me off on many new boats is the fold down seating. I feel that all deck designs should have a total fishing design without folding  seats. They destroy rear deck fishing. Don't  trust them to step on. We need to see pure fishing boats again.

Great point!

[bernieNC]

Currently talking w/ Frank and company about a 16’ moccasin.

[whichwaysup]

Great points.  Geeviam, interesting idea about bass vs. flats caps on the same hull.  I do think that Saltwater boat companies could learn a few things from the freshwater bass crowd when it comes to storage and layout.  I have a buddy who had a ranger intercoastal and was blown away by how well thought out the storage was.  Made use of every bit of the boat.   I dont like the look of the glitter boats (for saltwater use) but I would think the storage concepts could easily be transferred.

[geeviam]

4 minutes ago, whichwaysup said:

Great points.  Geeviam, interesting idea about bass vs. flats caps on the same hull.  I do think that Saltwater boat companies could learn a few things from the freshwater bass crowd when it comes to storage and layout.  I have a buddy who had a ranger intercoastal and was blown away by how well thought out the storage was.  Made use of every bit of the boat.   I dont like the look of the glitter boats (for saltwater use) but I would think the storage concepts could easily be transferred.

I'm with you on glitter boats.  I favor the flats class boats, even for fresh water, but was just thinking of way for MBG to gain some market share.  The bass guys are always looking for the edge on the competition, and I think the quiet boat that could sneak up on bass in shallow or confined waters would make a difference.  You're right - the bass boat companies put a lot of thought into all the storage and convenience features in their boats.  Transom strength too, LOL!

[Shallowminded6]

Def agree about the fold down seat, got tons of stress cracks to prove that point. Geeviam: why no recessed trim tabs? Always liked that look personally. Isnt part of the reason the MA cuts better is due to a narrower beam. Obviously the sharper V does allot of the work. Gotta tread lightly with these MA guys. Dont want them to go lord of the flies on me. 😎

[whichwaysup]

43 minutes ago, Shallowminded6 said:

Def agree about the fold down seat, got tons of stress cracks to prove that point. Geeviam: why no recessed trim tabs? Always liked that look personally. Isnt part of the reason the MA cuts better is due to a narrower beam. Obviously the sharper V does allot of the work. Gotta tread lightly with these MA guys. Dont want them to go lord of the flies on me. 😎

We are a cultish group and we are obscenely proud of our boats, but as emperor of the MA fan club, I will grant you immunity.   I agree on the recessed tabs, I like em, why would we want to lose em?

[geeviam]

47 minutes ago, Shallowminded6 said:

Def agree about the fold down seat, got tons of stress cracks to prove that point. Geeviam: why no recessed trim tabs? Always liked that look personally. Isnt part of the reason the MA cuts better is due to a narrower beam. Obviously the sharper V does allot of the work. Gotta tread lightly with these MA guys. Dont want them to go lord of the flies on me. 😎

I agree hiding them looks a little better.  The reasons not to: The whole point of trim tabs is to use leverage to force the bow down and/or level the boat.  The farther back the tabs are, the more leverage you have to smooth out the ride, almost like adding more length to the boat.  Also, having the tabs back on the transom is better for reducing drag.  You can raise them all the way out of the water, and there is just a smooth running surface on the hull bottom with a squared off edge, with no pockets of resistence like with the recessed tabs.  A completely smooth bottom without pockets or voids on the aft portion of the hull creates more stern lift as well, and allows the motor trim to leverage and hold the bow up to achieve better top speeds.

You're spot-on about the MA's narrower beam contributing to the awesome ride.  That's why I mentioned it.  A boat with too much beam will pound, instead of cut through rough water.  It will also have a tendency to porpoise, and require the use of tabs most of the time for stability.  The classic lines of the Maverick MA are a thing of beauty, without a doubt.

I like the Egret 189 pretty well.  I like the Egret 2011 better.  I think the Egret 167 has too much beam for its length.  It might be fine, but I would definitely want a test ride in it before signing the order.  One thing is for sure though - the quality, fit and finish of any boat Frank builds is the best it can be!  👍

[Shallowminded6]

Makes sense, never really thought about that or noticed mine when retracted all the way. But nothing to really compare it to either. Is the Egret line a wider hull like the Redfisher? Wasnt sure if the 83” numbers you were using were referencing bay boats. I was figuring if you widened the MA, it would almost be the Redfisher. I do like the storage of Bassboats. The only thing I dont see Bass boats having for storage is areas to set coolers. Unless mounted to the deck. Always liked being able to set mine in the cockpit area during longer runs. But its a give and take with storage, more compartments equal less cockpit etc. I do wish they put the rodlockers back in. Less panic attacks while eating with the boat in a slip. 

[SouthernWake]

Ultimately owning boats like we do I think we are biased in this. Unfortunately I think if it was a viable/profitable avenue some manufactures would be doing it.

[geeviam]

55 minutes ago, Shallowminded6 said:

Makes sense, never really thought about that or noticed mine when retracted all the way. But nothing to really compare it to either. Is the Egret line a wider hull like the Redfisher? Wasnt sure if the 83” numbers you were using were referencing bay boats. I was figuring if you widened the MA, it would almost be the Redfisher. I do like the storage of Bassboats. The only thing I dont see Bass boats having for storage is areas to set coolers. Unless mounted to the deck. Always liked being able to set mine in the cockpit area during longer runs. But its a give and take with storage, more compartments equal less cockpit etc. I do wish they put the rodlockers back in. Less panic attacks while eating with the boat in a slip. 

Egret 189, LOA: 18'9", BEAM: 7'5", FIBERGLASS WEIGHT: 950 LBS

Maverick 18 Master Angler, LOA: 18'5", BEAM: 7'6", FIBERGLASS WEIGHT: 1,512 LBS

Hewes Redfisher 18, LOA: 18'10", BEAM: 7'11", FIBERGLASS WEIGHT: 1,523 LBS

The beam numbers I mentioned in the previous post are just my own suggestions based on  proven skiff designs that work well in all aspects - ride, performance, stability, light weight, shallow draft, ease of poling, and stealth.  To be honest, the only model I suggested that might possibly fill a niche between the bay boat and TPS markets is the 20 ft flats boat with the 88" beam.  We don't need any more bay boats or TPS to choose from.

Edited February 13, 2020 by geeviam
updated

[whichwaysup]

Wow, egrets are 500 lbs lighter than mavs and redfishers???  and 4 inches longer?  I also didmt realize that the redfisher was longer than the MA.   

 

As for the trim tabs, They are already, aguably, too sensitive on the MA.  Just look at the switch and you can feel the bow dig in.  You really have to learn how to barely bump the switch or things can get exciting.   

 

500 lbs??  I still cant believe that.  My fiberglass guy was surprised how thin the glass on my hull was, curious how Egret is saving that much weight.  Thats an entire engine!

[Shallowminded6]

Egrets are all carbon kevlar if I remember right? Thanks for the reply Geeviam

[bernieNC]

57 minutes ago, Shallowminded6 said:

Egrets are all carbon kevlar if I remember right? Thanks for the reply Geeviam

Carbon Kevlar is an option.

[geeviam]

36 minutes ago, Shallowminded6 said:

Egrets are all carbon kevlar if I remember right? Thanks for the reply Geeviam

You're welcome.  Actually their website specs show the Kevlar version is 825 LBS.  Remarkable!  I found a set of new build pictures that a customer posted online.  The hull has no stingers glassed in.  The inner liner provides a rigid support grid.  Then the top cap fits on that.  I've seen this method on another new skiff design recently.  Apparently saves a lot of weight, while adding strength.

[whichwaysup]

Wow - those are pretty cool pics.    After my stringer issue, not sure how I feel about no stringers . . . part of me thinks "one less failure point,"  The other part says, "I'll take the titanium reinforced, double walled, extra thick, triple bonded, stringers thank you very much"

But I've never run across a thread talking about Egret Hull failures, even on their oldest models, so it must work fine.

[mulligan]

OK I get the tabs mounted on the back of the transom and not under.  Yes they look better recessed and one, well two less things for a line to snag on but I have had my head over the transom and have seem some disturbance in the water flow.  I also get it that there is more buoyancy with a non-pocket hull but how is it faster?  I know the L&B boys run faster with a pocket hull than non-pocket.  Also doesn't a pocket allow for the motor to run higher without adding setback?  I could see no pocket on a 16' but on a 19',20' I would think it would be a plus?

I really think MBC needs to turn us loose at the factory with some molds and sawzalls and let us at it!  No need for those fancy CAD and CNC machines just good ole playing until it is just right.   

[whichwaysup]

This is so typical of the posts you see out there.   Man, I wish we could get Skip to consider re-introducing the MA hull on the redfisher line.   We might just make those "birds" go "chicken" 

I live in Tampa and I own an 189 2013 egret. I've owned several flats boats including a maverick master angler 18 and and action craft 18 flats boat which are I believe are comparable boats. The egret and the maverick have a large deep v in the front and ride very well in a head sea. The egret is a bit dryer than the maverick. Top speed wise they are about the same at 54-55 mph. I had an 150 hp yamaha 2 stroke vmax on the maverick and a 150 four stroke yamaha on the egret. Maverick had a much better hole shot, but that was due to the engine. They both draft about the same. The egret definitely has better "fit and finish" than the maverick and the action craft. The storage on the egret is amazing. The livewells are huge and much better than the maverick. The action craft was a faster boat and had a little better draft, but the ride cannot compare to the other two. Unfortunately, maverick has since discontinued the master angler which is a shame. I would have looked at one if they were still made when I was deciding on the egret. I wanted a boat that rode similar or better than my maverick and was 18 feet, that's why I picked the egret. If you are looking for a backcountry boat, that will ride well, carry a ton of bait, lots of storage, and relatively small, it's great. I did not install push pole holders on my boat, I use the trolling motor exclusively. That being said are there some things, I would change about the egret, sure; but it works for me. I had an issue with one of the boat batteries that wasn't holding a charge, and Frank shipped me a new one free of charge. I also upgraded the livewell pump to a 1100gph, and he sent me new fittings /parts/pump for the install for free. He has been very accessible and courteous. IF you have any further questions, don't hesitate to PM me.

 

 

Not that I have anything against Egret, I just like the lines of the MA hull so much better!   

[linesider 159]

The pocket allows for more bow lift and does let the water clean up before getting to the motor. It also drafts a little bit more. 

[geeviam]

1 hour ago, mulligan said:

OK I get the tabs mounted on the back of the transom and not under.  Yes they look better recessed and one, well two less things for a line to snag on but I have had my head over the transom and have seem some disturbance in the water flow.  I also get it that there is more buoyancy with a non-pocket hull but how is it faster?  I know the L&B boys run faster with a pocket hull than non-pocket.  Also doesn't a pocket allow for the motor to run higher without adding setback?  I could see no pocket on a 16' but on a 19',20' I would think it would be a plus?

I really think MBC needs to turn us loose at the factory with some molds and sawzalls and let us at it!  No need for those fancy CAD and CNC machines just good ole playing until it is just right.   

Lol - I always enjoy your posts Mulligan!  The only reason the pocket concept is not for me is because I would rather have a jack plate for more setback (cleaner water to the prop) and ride control.  A jack plate plus a pocket equals too much setback, too much stern squat, and not enough stern buoyancy and lift on takeoff.  I have a jack plate on my RF 16 with a pocket, and I am in the process of removing it.  Not because I don't like/want a jack plate.  It's because the setback built into the pocket is already 14" before adding more setback with the JP.  I have had a difficult journey trying to get more bow lift, even with the COG so far back with the JP.  Yet, Outlaw has an RF 16 with the same 115 SHO that I have, with no JP, and he can practically do wheelies across the pond with all the bow lift he wants, with the same prop!  I am convinced that the RF 16 and RF 18 are not well suited for a jack plate.  The RF 21 is another story, and runs well with a JP.

Faster with a pocket?  Again, pocket without a jack plate - good.  Jack plate without a pocket - good.  Pocket + jack plate = not as good

The Egret 2011 with a Merc Pro XS 250, with the pad on the keel, a jack plate and no pocket is a 74 mph boat

 

 

44 minutes ago, linesider 159 said:

The pocket allows for more bow lift and does let the water clean up before getting to the motor. It also drafts a little bit more. 

 

[smilemaker]

If you prefer no pocket for the performance has anyone made a removable insert like a fixed trim tab that would act as a pad and allow for the jackplate to sit back.

Mount and fair it to place in the pocket