i’ve been interested in the hemlock peregrine. but, i see the peregrine stern height is only 14.5 inches [the kestral a only 14"]. is this too low? wouldn’t this cause some “taking on water” problems in rough water, especially with a load? what is the minimum height you would consider in a flatwater tripping canoe?
Call Dave Curtis
I just bought a Peregrine and while I don’t feel like I’ve had it long enough or used it loaded enough yet to give you a definitive answer, I’d suggest you give Dave Curtis at Hemlock a call and talk to him about this question. He’s as honest as the day is long. So far I’ve had the Peregrine out in calm water and in some big waves but lightly loaded and there was no hint of water washing in from the stern. Or the bow, for that matter. I’m taking mine camping this weekend and plan to be loaded. If the lake kicks up some wind, I’ll let you know how it worked out. Can’t wait.
where are you goin’?
I’m thinking Cranberry
I’ll probably go to Cranberry Lake but maybe Follensby Clear or if I’m really lazy, I’ll drive into a site at Rollins. You going out this weekend?
I have paddled a Peregrine in some good chop, it ran dry, but it wasn’t loaded. My wife uses a Kestrel and have never had any problems, loaded or unloaded on big and small lakes. Depth can work both ways, it will help keep you dry, but catches more wind. I paddle an SRT which is about as deep as a solo gets, again it is very dry through some big stuff, but it does catch more wind. It’s all a trade off.
If I was just doing only lake work I would choose the Peregrine or Kestrel, throw in some river work and the SRT is tough to beet, in my opinion.
Can’t go wrong with a Hemlock boat either way.
I’d appreciate a report when you get back. Thanks!
it’s not too low
I’ve got a Peregrine and a Kestrel too. Don’t have many miles on the Kestrel yet. My paddling buddy has my former SRT.
I remember paddling across a lake across maybe a mile stretch into major wind that suddenly picked up and whitecaps and waves maybe 2 feet or so…with maybe slightly bigger rolling waves. The wind was high enough to blow the SRT to a standstill…but it sure stayed dry because it’s so deep (my buddy would suddenly get blwon sideways violently). The Peregrine could still make solid and controllable forward headway even though it was taking waves that touched the bottom side of the front rails. There’s just absolutely no problem with water from behind. These conditions probably would have sunk the Kestrel with me plus the dog but it would have been from water over the bow.
And going downriver through a mild section of rapids followed by a set of standing waves about 2 feet high…the Peregrine is actually a touch dryer than a Merlin II and close to equal to a Wildfire, and it may take a few drops or a splash up near the bow, but never from the stern.
==> no issues with low stern height!
If you get a Kestrel or a Peregrine I don’t think you’ll regret it.
…with the other posts as to the seaworthiness of the Peregrine. I’ve had mine about a year and a half, and although I’ve not paddled it fully loaded yet, the boat just instills confidence. I’m planning on tripping next year in Woodland Caribou P.P., so I’ll get a better idea how it handles with a load. Bottom line is that Dave Curtis is a great guy and the Peregrine is a great design. I just can’t see how you could go wrong.
flare/volume in ends
Both these hulls are designed with a significant amount of flare in the ends. These means that the volume of the hull increases significantly with height above the waterline making the ends very bouyant. This causes the end of the boat to rise with the wave instead of knifing into it, making it much more seaworthy.