Golden Hind 31

Loopy

Member
Joined
20 Aug 2017
Messages
54
Visit site
I'm considering one of these, and would appreciate your thoughts. We're in Florida and it seems like her draft, air draft, and seaworthiness would make her a good choice for our shallow local waters, ICW, and the Caribbean.

It's hull #174, completed 6/1977 (glass hull, wood deck and cabintop).

She needs an engine, I'm considering a new Beta 20.

Any specific things to watch out for? What are some of the mods y'all have undertaken?
 

PetiteFleur

Well-known member
Joined
29 Feb 2008
Messages
4,982
Location
Suffolk
Visit site
I had a sail in one some time ago, it was heavy, and I thought sluggish so was not for me, I was not impressed. They do have a reputation for sea worthyness. But maybe I was unlucky. I would go for a 25 or 30hp Beta.
 

oldmanofthehills

Well-known member
Joined
13 Aug 2010
Messages
4,703
Location
Bristol / Cornwall
Visit site
An aquaintance used to have one in our old creek. He went many miles in it and neither he or his crew complained of any adverse feature.

The choppy waters of the Bristol Channel favours heavy boats for cruising. I think 20HP fine for a 27 footer but bought 25/28HP in our 31 footer, though the sometimes need to push against strong currents and short seas in the Bristol Channel influenced our choice
 

Black Sheep

Well-known member
Joined
13 Nov 2005
Messages
1,958
Location
East coast, UK
Visit site
I had a Golden Hind 26 - the chopped-down version of the 31.
I liked it; it suited my sailing. The long keel gave a lot of directional stability - I was happy to stroll up to the mast to raise/drop sail while motoring in a harbour without any kind of autopilot. The downside is that she took a degree of coaxing to bring her about; no problem, but a different way of working compared to the dinghy-like steering of a more modern fin.
The shallow draft and ability to take the ground on her bilge plates was particularly valuable to me - you can get into creeks, use shallow passages and anchor in places that deeper boats can't (or don't dare) get to.
I found she wasn't too keen on getting very close to the wind - but I did have ancient baggy sails. And I suspect that the 31 is better in this regard anyway.
The ambience is pleasingly old-fashioned, with lots of wood in the cabin and around the boat. She suits oil lamps. But you'll need to look after the woodwork - not just cosmetically, but I found the aft bulkheads prone to rot once water got into them.
I sold mine when it needed re-engining (amongst other things) - the old 10hp Bukh was getting too flakey. A Beta 10 would have been my replacement if I'd kept her; I'm sure a Beta 20 would be fine in the 31.
 

whaup

Member
Joined
5 Oct 2021
Messages
51
Visit site
I'm considering one of these, and would appreciate your thoughts. We're in Florida and it seems like her draft, air draft, and seaworthiness would make her a good choice for our shallow local waters, ICW, and the Caribbean.

It's hull #174, completed 6/1977 (glass hull, wood deck and cabintop).

She needs an engine, I'm considering a new Beta 20.

Any specific things to watch out for? What are some of the mods y'all have undertaken?

I'm guessing you already know this but... they don't have a lot of sail, so need a reasonable breeze to get going: it's easy to read too much into raw figures but the SA/D is pretty low; definitely more traditional motorsailor than modern performance cruiser. You are unlikely to see sprightly progress upwind in light conditions, though if that were your priority, I doubt you'd be looking for a boat like this!
You'll probably want a quiet, powerful engine installed. We have a Beta in the family narrowboat and I can't fault it.

Cheers,
W.
 

Tranona

Well-known member
Joined
10 Nov 2007
Messages
40,729
Visit site
Right on Cue - I have just bought one, number 208 about 2 years younger than 174 but structurally essentially the same. Comments about sailing ability are on the right lines, although can be improved with good modern sails. I have known these boats since they were new and for near 40 years owned a 26' Eventide, one of its predecessors built by the same builder that originally built the GH.

In my search this year I looked at several, both all wood and GRP hull. The hulls are bullet proof, but look at the fastenings for the bilge plates. The weak points are related to the connections between the wooden deck and the hull. Although the deck is sheathed in glass/epoxy there is still the possibility of leaks through fittings getting into the ply and causing rot - a bit like a cored deck on a GRP boat. Tap all around the deck for dull sounds which indicate possible rot of the ply core. another area is around the sampson post on the foredeck and the bowsprit if fitted. The king plank under the deck here is plywood and can rot if water gets in. Likewise look for splits in the sheathing on the coachroof, usually along the edges. You can often tell if water has got in by looking closely inside. The aft deck on mine is GRP as is the cockpit well. The weakness here is where it joins the cabin at the bridgedeck. Water can get in the join and spread into the beam and main bulkhead underneath. check around the main bulkhead from the inside for signs of water staining which might indicate water ingress, particularly on the outer edges around the joint with the side deck. These boats were built individually and the details of construction varied from boat to boat, as did internal layouts, plus of course owners have messed about with them over the years so what you find may differ from mine.

As to engines. This is my task for today - deciding which engine to fit. My boat has a 35hp Pekins similar to a Volvo MD 2040 which is far to big as well as being a "bitza" mixture of parts. Works OK, but I am replacing it with either a Nanni or Sole 29hp. A 20 is far to small for today's requirements - the boat displaces over 5.5 tons and a 20 will not give hull speed. The critical limitation is propeller size. You need a minimum of 16" diameter 3 blade because the keel is wide and blocks waterflow. This needs the 29 and a 2.4 or 2.6:1 reduction, while you can get this reduction for a 20hp and run a 16" you do not have enough power to drive a steep enough pitch. The 20 normally has a 14 or 15" prop which will be ineffective. I shall fit a Featherstream propeller, rather expensive, but will give better performance overall than a fixed with the added advantage of reduced drag under sail. I should finalise my choice of engine/gearbox/propeller in the next couple of days.

This is a link to my boat boatshed.com/golden_hind_31-boat-303654.html

To the OP If you send me a message with your email address I will send you a PDF of the survey on my boat which will give you a pretty good guide as to what to look for. I have found nothing else of note since starting work on the boat except the electrics are even more bizarre than at first thought and will be ripped out - even though everything seems to work!. I have removed the wind generator and davits as not needed for what I want to do with the boat. Let me know if you heed any more information.
 

Loopy

Member
Joined
20 Aug 2017
Messages
54
Visit site
Thanks Tranona, email sent. I looked at the Nanni 29hp motor, just based on physical appearance it appears to be based on the same Kubota as the Beta 25hp motor though the displacement is the same as the Beta 30...? Although this could be as simple as someone putting the wrong jpg in a marketing brochure...or perhaps one manufacturer rating peak vs continuous hp? Not sure.
 

Tranona

Well-known member
Joined
10 Nov 2007
Messages
40,729
Visit site
There was a report on them in PBO - I will have a look and see if I can find it. I remember you can get a tall rig.
The standard rig is short - 32' and nominal sail area around 370 sq ft. A few 36' mast rigs were made at the tail end. Mark Urry designed a 36' rig for the first boats he built. However this was for use with his modified hull (greater draft by 3" and more ballast to get Cat A on stability). His final rig was a cutter with a very tall mast (39' from memory) and a bowsprit.

Many boats have bow sprits to take the foresail forward which also help weather helm and 2 or 3 had ketch rigs. Not sure what I will do with mine as the genoa is excellent (lightly used Hood Vectran) but discussing with Kemps a new mainsail.
 

Laminar Flow

Well-known member
Joined
14 Jan 2020
Messages
1,843
Location
West Coast
Visit site
I'm guessing you already know this but... they don't have a lot of sail, so need a reasonable breeze to get going: it's easy to read too much into raw figures but the SA/D is pretty low; definitely more traditional motorsailor than modern performance cruiser. You are unlikely to see sprightly progress upwind in light conditions, though if that were your priority, I doubt you'd be looking for a boat like this!
You'll probably want a quiet, powerful engine installed. We have a Beta in the family narrowboat and I can't fault it.

Cheers,
W.
I would be very cautious about predicting sailing performance from "raw data" published on Sailboatdata, etc.
Sometime in the 90's there was a change in the way SA/D is calculated, from using total SA carried to windward, including large overlapping headsails, to using fore triangle only. This approach, benefits the contemporary trend to large mains and small fore triangle while giving older designs the appearance of being under canvased.

SA/D for a motorsailer is defined as sub 13 and many trad. MS don't even get anywhere near that. Fairly assessed, the GH 31 should do quite a bit better than the numbers quoted in Sailboat data would suggest. Furthermore, the photo shown with the double spreader rig is of the final model with a considerably taller mast and enhanced ballast, whereas the line drawings are those of the original design; all presented without commentary.

The displacements quoted in Sailboatdata and elsewhere are most often aspirational at best, particularly for contemporary designs which like to publish displacements for "light ship"only and without even the weight crew onboard. Not so long ago designers and builders at least had the decency to calculate displacements in "half load".

In this respect the OP is better off getting his info from those who actually own/have owned and sail one of these boats.
 

Tranona

Well-known member
Joined
10 Nov 2007
Messages
40,729
Visit site
Thanks Tranona, email sent. I looked at the Nanni 29hp motor, just based on physical appearance it appears to be based on the same Kubota as the Beta 25hp motor though the displacement is the same as the Beta 30...? Although this could be as simple as someone putting the wrong jpg in a marketing brochure...or perhaps one manufacturer rating peak vs continuous hp? Not sure.


Beta and Nanni use the same Kubota base but there are detail differences in marinisation and ancillary equipment.

The 25 is unique to Beta and is not the same as the 30 - 892cc against 1123cc. So smaller and lighter. Nanni do not use this base engine as it is a slow seller, but is very suitable for many boats that previously had engines like Yanmar 2GMs which don't need a 30 but benefit from more than the 20. Such boats often have restricted engine bays and the smaller size helps.

If you want to achieve hull speed on a GH you need around 25 HP at the prop and you can't get this from a Beta 25 - the "30" gives 27hp at the prop and with the right prop will comfortably achieve hull speed and a cruising speed of 5.5 knots at around 2300rpm.

I chose a Nanni for my last re-engine because of the local dealer and the fact that the engine is painted blue and matched the upholstery of the boat. I would have been just as happy with a beta (and tolerated the mismatch with the upholstery). local dealer and quality of installation are the key factors in engine choice. The GH engine bay will comfortably take any of the 30hp engines on the market.
 

Tranona

Well-known member
Joined
10 Nov 2007
Messages
40,729
Visit site
I would be very cautious about predicting sailing performance from "raw data" published on Sailboatdata, etc.
Sometime in the 90's there was a change in the way SA/D is calculated, from using total SA carried to windward, including large overlapping headsails, to using fore triangle only. This approach, benefits the contemporary trend to large mains and small fore triangle while giving older designs the appearance of being under canvased.

SA/D for a motorsailer is defined as sub 13 and many trad. MS don't even get anywhere near that. Fairly assessed, the GH 31 should do quite a bit better than the numbers quoted in Sailboat data would suggest. Furthermore, the photo shown with the double spreader rig is of the final model with a considerably taller mast and enhanced ballast, whereas the line drawings are those of the original design; all presented without commentary.

The displacements quoted in Sailboatdata and elsewhere are most often aspirational at best, particularly for contemporary designs which like to publish displacements for "light ship"only and without even the weight crew onboard. Not so long ago designers and builders at least had the decency to calculate displacements in "half load".

In this respect the OP is better off getting his info from those who actually own/have owned and sail one of these boats.
The displacement is not far out. Mine came in at just over 6 tons on the crane without the mast compared with 5.26 tons on the design. As I have explained almost all boats had the standard rig, A few of the last Erskine built boats had the 4' taller mast, one very early Hartwells boat has been retrofitted with the Urry 36' rig that came the boats he built to RDC Cat A but I think only the last one he built for himself (which he has just sold ) had the very tall rig.

Your observations about actual sail areas are correct. I shall know actual sail area when Kemps have deigned my main, but the genoa has some overlap - I shall have it measured. Pretty sure it will sail OK by the time I have got it sorted!
 

Laminar Flow

Well-known member
Joined
14 Jan 2020
Messages
1,843
Location
West Coast
Visit site
The displacement is not far out. Mine came in at just over 6 tons on the crane without the mast compared with 5.26 tons on the design. As I have explained almost all boats had the standard rig, A few of the last Erskine built boats had the 4' taller mast, one very early Hartwells boat has been retrofitted with the Urry 36' rig that came the boats he built to RDC Cat A but I think only the last one he built for himself (which he has just sold ) had the very tall rig.

Your observations about actual sail areas are correct. I shall know actual sail area when Kemps have deigned my main, but the genoa has some overlap - I shall have it measured. Pretty sure it will sail OK by the time I have got it sorted!
I met Mr Urry and I have seen the boat you mention; it is/was kept in the same Breton marina where we have ours. I did mention the tallness of his rig at the time and we had a fine conversation about it.

From what you report, your boat comes in at about 20% over nominal displacement, which is fairly normal for a max (over)weight allowance. Off course, your boat was also designed at a time when displacement/weight in a cruising boat was considered beneficial and designers, builders and marketing were less likely to fudge or obfuscate the numbers and loads were assumed with tanks half full, supplies, equipment and crew onboard.
 

Wing Mark

Well-known member
Joined
29 Sep 2021
Messages
1,129
Visit site
It needs to be very cheap with the work involved. Re engineeng a boat is a major cost.
You have to want a GH with a nice engine.
You will struggle to buy one with a nice engine.

If you sell it in say 5 years, it should attract a premium, if there is a buyer out there who also wants a GH with a nice engine.
Meanwhile , you've had 5 years of yacht ownership with no grief from old engines, and the assurance of having more power.

I think the worst thing to do is buy a boat with a poor engine, make do with it for a few years, be forced to replace it at big cost and then sell the boat shortly after.
All of the cost and little of the benefit.

But predicting the future value of any boat is dubious, more so with a boat which (trying to be polite here...) isn't going to appeal to all that many people.

So long as a buyer understands what it's going to cost and isn't relying on getting too much back, where's the problem?

There are two on Apolloduck for £20k (each!!!)

I wonder what this one went for?:
SOLD - 31ft. GOLDEN HIND, BERMUDIAN MASTHEAD CUTTER - the last example built, as new condition - Lying: France - Classic Yacht Brokerage
 

Laminar Flow

Well-known member
Joined
14 Jan 2020
Messages
1,843
Location
West Coast
Visit site
It needs to be very cheap with the work involved. Re engineeng a boat is a major cost.
Depends, if one can do the labour part oneself, there are a lot of things that are more expensive, such as redoing a teak deck.

I re-engined our boat myself and its not rocket science. The only things I had done by the yard were the craning in and out, the final check on the alignment, but having seen that done I would do it myself now, the final inspection and sea trial to ensure warranty. The latter was free as I bought the engine through them and got a hefty discount on the thing as well, i.e. 50% of mark-up.
Apart from saving money, the benefits of making the install oneself are much greater than just that and include intimate knowledge of the device and of where all the bits are, as well as the chance to make a much cleaner and tidier installation to whoever put in the old BMC 40 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Top