A proper Mobo

[Poignard]

Well I am not really sure, I did put it to them, but they said summat about it having to go to committee, or was it having me committed?? I can't really remember, mind you I can't really remember yesterday! I'll have a word and get back to you.

I don't think I've ever read such a load of composite motions.

 

[Chrusty 1]

I don't think I've ever read such a load of composite motions.

Better to read it, than to have to ferret around in it....Oh-Oh! I mentioned Ferrets, that's going to set him off on one.

Look parsipants, if all you can do is come on this thread and be rude to folk, well alright one folk, that is me. You can just and have a walk around your vast estate and get lost.

 

[jfm]

MapisM was right to highlight diplacement 24 tonnes seems all wrong,HDML's were twice that weight, suspect this has to be typo.

She is only really 65feet - the "70" badge comes with the lately-added swim platform. She is incredibly narrow, at 4.35m. She has no superstructure, low freeboard aft, tiny motors, a diddy single genset, half-arsed airco in the pilothouse only, ridiculously small tankage and lots of internal wasted space leaving only two cabins. And she could have generally light construction - as MapisM says she was built originally for a bit of speed. It's obvious she is no strong seaboat and you'd only want to pootle about the Med carefully in her and not expose her to proper big seas. Flimsy, in other words. So she could be 24tonnes I reckon

Hey Chrusty, for $12,750 you can make your own. Please do an in-build thread on here if you do And it was tested by MBY in the 1990s

 

[jfm]

HDML's were fitted with Gardners and so should Woodpecker, Perkins Sabre motors are a bit of a let down for this type of vessel. Smacks of engineering being done when rest of the cash was spent.

Latestarter, FWIW, the original motors in Woodpecker were twin Dorman 8cylinder diesels (100 hp each @ 2300 rpm) and original design displacement was 24.75t - according to various web pages

 

[Chrusty 1]

She is only really 65feet - the "70" badge comes with the lately-added swim platform. She is incredibly narrow, at 4.35m. She has no superstructure, low freeboard aft, tiny motors, a diddy single genset, half-arsed airco in the pilothouse only, ridiculously small tankage and lots of internal wasted space leaving only two cabins. And she could have generally light construction - as MapisM says she was built originally for a bit of speed. It's obvious she is no strong seaboat and you'd only want to pootle about the Med carefully in her and not expose her to proper big seas. Flimsy, in other words. So she could be 24tonnes I reckon

Hey Chrusty, for $12,750 you can make your own. Please do an in-build thread on here if you do And it was tested by MBY in the 1990s

Why don't you just say you don't like her, you seem to be going to a lot of trouble to prove some point or other? I am sure she will make some future owner very happy.

 

[jfm]

Why don't you just say you don't like her, you seem to be going to a lot of trouble to prove some point or other? I am sure she will make some future owner very happy.

I have said I don't like her. Apart from nice varnish and paint she has nothing really to commend her - space, machinery, seaworthiness, range are all unticked boxes. Nothing to "prove" - all merely imho as I have said.

 

[Chrusty 1]

I have said I don't like her. Apart from nice varnish and paint she has nothing really to commend her - space, machinery, seaworthiness, range are all unticked boxes. Nothing to "prove" - all merely imho as I have said.

Well to be honest, a lot of what you say about her is in my opinion, merely conjecture and opinion. You can't know what her seaworthiness is like unless you have been in her and done some sea miles, you can of course surmise, which is really all that you are doing. As to whether or not her machinery is adequate, from the reports in the advertisement, they seem to be man enough for the job, and capable of driving her at semi displacement speeds, and very economical at displacement speeds. I have had a displacement boat many moons ago now, but she was built to a ratio of 5-1, so long and narrow, but she didn't roll excessively, beam isn't everything when it comes to stability.

You have rubbished her equipment, but to my way of thinking it is in keeping with her style and years, you have rubbished her accommodations, but again, I say that it is keeping with her age, and is fairly normal for the period. You have rubbished her build quality as being too light, well MLs, who's design you say she emulates were built light, but my guess is that she is plenty strong enough, if she wasn't she would not have survived these 60 odd years, and certainly no-one would have bothered to keep her like she is, unless her condition in general warranted doing so. I would suggest that in actual fact she has a good number of sea miles under her keel, that in itself is a commendation.

Still I dare say that you will disagree with all that I have said, and that is your prerogative.

 

[RobWales]

Well to be honest, a lot of what you say about her is in my opinion, merely conjecture and opinion. You can't know what her seaworthiness is like unless you have been in her and done some sea miles, you can of course surmise, which is really all that you are doing. As to whether or not her machinery is adequate, from the reports in the advertisement, they seem to be man enough for the job, and capable of driving her at semi displacement speeds, and very economical at displacement speeds. I have had a displacement boat many moons ago now, but she was built to a ratio of 5-1, so long and narrow, but she didn't roll excessively, beam isn't everything when it comes to stability.

You have rubbished her equipment, but to my way of thinking it is in keeping with her style and years, you have rubbished her accommodations, but again, I say that it is keeping with her age, and is fairly normal for the period. You have rubbished her build quality as being too light, well MLs, who's design you say she emulates were built light, but my guess is that she is plenty strong enough, if she wasn't she would not have survived these 60 odd years, and certainly no-one would have bothered to keep her like she is, unless her condition in general warranted doing so. I would suggest that in actual fact she has a good number of sea miles under her keel, that in itself is a commendation.

Still I dare say that you will disagree with all that I have said, and that is your prerogative.

OOOF Play nice now boys

 

[MapisM]

Why don't you just say you don't like her, you seem to be going to a lot of trouble to prove some point or other?

LOL, didn't someone say "I would be interested in the views of other forum members" when starting this thread?

You're of course as free to consider her a masterpiece as myself, jfm and LS are free to think otherwise.
But most of our criticism actually wasn't "merely conjecture".
I mean, semantically you can call that conjecture I guess. But when i see many rotten apples on the ground below an apple tree at the end of the season, based on some basic knowledge on the gravity force and a few other things, deducting that they fell from the tree is a tad more than a conjecture...!

As an aside, may I ask you which long and narrow boat you had that didn't roll a lot?
I've yet to find ANY boat which doesn't, at D speed - let alone those long and narrow.
Unless stabilised, of course, which is not the case here.

 

[Chrusty 1]

OOOF Play nice now boys

It is not my intention to do otherwise

 

[Chrusty 1]

LOL, didn't someone say "I would be interested in the views of other forum members" when starting this thread?

You're of course as free to consider her a masterpiece as myself, jfm and LS are free to think otherwise.
But most of our criticism actually wasn't "merely conjecture".
I mean, semantically you can call that conjecture I guess. But when i see many rotten apples on the ground below an apple tree at the end of the season, based on some basic knowledge on the gravity force and a few other things, deducting that they fell from the tree is a tad more than a conjecture...!

As an aside, may I ask you which long and narrow boat you had that didn't roll a lot?
I've yet to find ANY boat which doesn't, at D speed - let alone those long and narrow.
Unless stabilised, of course, which is not the case here.

Absolutely it's just from the tone and some of the language used, I was getting the impression that there is something else going on here than simply saying "well she is not my cup of tea, because I think" etc.

Anyway, be that as it may or may not be, yes you may ask she was a 1910 "Gentlemans Motor Yacht" 52 feet long, 10 feet 6 inches on the beam and drew 5 feet.

Yes she rolled but not in my opinion excessively, Maybe somebody on this forum might know something about her, after I sold her she was sold to a member of the Monty Python team, I don't know who, but I know she went to London and was restored quite extensively, she was called "Diana" .
She was quite a charming old thing really, my first wife and I lived on her for a couple of years, all a bit of an adventure for a young couple, we sailed her round from Exeter to Bideford, and had a whale of a time doing it.

 

[jfm]

Well to be honest, a lot of what you say about her is in my opinion, merely conjecture and opinion. .

Yup, and I generally said "imho". No need to get agitated - we just have a boat that some folks like and others don't

On the seaworthiness thing my comments are based on the large forward facing glass, near vertical, and made long before the high-tech glass we have today, including some about 600mm above deck level. Plus all that clobber on the deck. The clobber isn't original becuase it isn't present in early pics of her, but it has been there several years. That table would be straight through the window in a big head sea, which is more fact/science than opinion. Probably the big box abaft of the anchor gear too. You really could not sensibly go to sea in that boat except in calm weather and within an hour or two of a safe haven

 

[Chrusty 1]

Yup, and I generally said "imho". No need to get agitated - we just have a boat that some folks like and others don't

On the seaworthiness thing my comments are based on the large forward facing glass, near vertical, and made long before the high-tech glass we have today, including some about 600mm above deck level. Plus all that clobber on the deck. The clobber isn't original becuase it isn't present in early pics of her, but it has been there several years. That table would be straight through the window in a big head sea, which is more fact/science than opinion. Probably the big box abaft of the anchor gear too. You really could not sensibly go to sea in that boat except in calm weather and within an hour or two of a safe haven

Well sorry if I came across as being agitated, I wasn't really, we are only discussing an old boat after all I suppose that me and thee will just have to agree to disagree, but just one small point if I may......

Most mobos are never used in rough weather these days, from what I have seen of most of the modern designs with their massive superstructures and patio doors and so forth. They are intended as, and used as holiday destinations for a bit of enjoyable cruising in the sunshine, most are not even equipped with a sea going galley. Let me hasten to add, that there is nothing wrong with that, who wants to be out in a boat, any boat, in stormy weather? Certainly not I, been there done that, and didn't like it much.

The point I am making is, the old girl is never likely to get sniff of a storm and high seas, she is most likely to be used as she was always intended, i.e. something to spend a week or two on in the sunshine.

 

[Latestarter1]

Latestarter, FWIW, the original motors in Woodpecker were twin Dorman 8cylinder diesels (100 hp each @ 2300 rpm) and original design displacement was 24.75t - according to various web pages

MMM.....Having looked at some of my stuff on HDML survey many years ago just a few observations.

Genes of Woodpecker firmly rooted in HDML. I have poor quality stability curve and the righting moment made then very 'stiff'. Vessels fitted out for long sea passages were fitted with aux sails to make them more sea kindly.

Original HDML engines were Gardner 8L3 31/2 tonnes or Glenniifer 4 tonnes circa 160 Hp.

Building a new private yacht derivitive would require re-think of engine installation. Most HDMLs were re-powered post war with Gardner 6LX with the light duty 127 hp rating and engine/gearbox was around a tonne each. However when this vessel was built Gardners would likely have had a two year waiting list. There were plenty of 'new' war surplus Dorman 8LA's about which were about 1 1/2 tonnes which still represents a huge weight saving over original HDML power units which could have been up to ten tonnes for the pair together with mechanical gearboxes.

I can understand replacing the Dormans as they were nasty old leak boxes with non existant spares support.

However to replace the Dormans with Perkins Sabre 225's was simply nuts. Would have had a positive impact on metacentric height, however I do not think that was in the plan.
To swing decent sized props in this big aperture required engines with SAE 2 back ends. No SAE2 option for Perkins Sabre as far as I know.

Why did people doing the restoration do it? Performed on the cheap, the Perkins Sabre was cheap power. Out of sight out of mind. Perhaps that gives a taste of the whole restoration project.

Simple logic should have been to follow established practice and re-power with pair of Gardner 6LX or even 6LXB's with SAE pattern back ends and Twin Disc boxes which would have been able to swing original propeller diameter.

I am a wooden boat nut and still think she is a pretty vessel, however whatever she was is all screwed up now in my opinion.

 

[Chrusty 1]

MMM.....Having looked at some of my stuff on HDML survey many years ago just a few observations.

Genes of Woodpecker firmly rooted in HDML. I have poor quality stability curve and the righting moment made then very 'stiff'. Vessels fitted out for long sea passages were fitted with aux sails to make them more sea kindly.

Original engines were Gardner 8L3 31/2 tonnes or Glenniifer 4 tonnes circa 160 Hp.

Building a new private yacht derivitive would require re-think of engine installation. Most HDMLs were re-powered post war with Gardner 6LX with the light duty 127 hp rating and engine/gearbox was around a tonne each. However when this vessel was built Gardners would likely have had a two year waiting list. There were plenty of 'new' war surplus Dorman 8LA's about which were about 1 1/2 tonnes which still represents a huge weight saving over original HDML power units which could have been up to ten tonnes for the pair together with mechanical gearboxes.

I can understand replacing the Dormans as they were nasty old leak boxes with non existant spares support.

However to replace the Dormans with Perkins Sabre 225's was simply nuts. Would have had a positive impact on metacentric height, however I do not think that was in the plan.
To swing decent sized props in this big aperture required engines with SAE 2 back ends. No SAE2 option for Perkins Sabre as far as I know.

Why did people doing the restoration do it? Performed on the cheap, the Perkins Sabre was cheap power. Out of sight out of mind. Perhaps that gives a taste of the whole restoration project.

Simple logic should have been to follow established practice and re-power with pair of Gardner 6LX or even 6LXB's with SAE pattern back ends and Twin Disc boxes which would have been able to swing original propeller diameter.

I am a wooden boat nut and still think she is a pretty vessel, however whatever she was is all screwed up now in my opinion.

Very interesting comments, I think you are far more knowledgeable than me about these things, I was just very taken with Woodpeckers looks, as you say, very pretty. Not too untidy for a bit of cruising and posing around the Med though eh?