Hi jwilson
MANY THANKS EVERYONE!
Truthfully I just started to build it to stay away from the ex. Once it was launched and we moved onboard I became a total Yotty. Sailed it for a few years without an engine. It is easily driven, if you can determine which way your cigarette smoke blows, you can sail the boat. The performance is nearly as good as an S&S 39. Try to get hold of Hartleys book to confirm it was built to specs. I seem to remember that the hull thickness was 5/8" or 3/4" Draft was 6'-0". On mine I extended the trunk cabin one frame ( 3'-1 1/2" ? )further aft. After consulting the designer. That ruled out the ferro cabin sides.
My experiences of ferro boats go back to looking at an Endurance which was stuck on the market at an improbably low asking price. It was my first experience of the prejudice surrounding the medium which came to the fore recently in a mega-thread on the Cruiser forum. It is worth a search.
In the end I was scared off the Endurance both by the doom-sayers and, to a lesser extent the teak deck which was shot.
Wind forward five years ebay presented me with another ferro - a John Samson ketch advertised as a Sea Breeze and lying in a sorry state in Liverpool.
After an eighteen month refit including re-powering I launched last July:
Some opinions on the points raised by the OP:
a). On the whole the predjudices are voiced by peeps who have never had experience of the medium but who are keen to repeat some of the horror stories. I don't mind. It makes ferro a very affordable proposition.
b). If resale value is important then ferro may not be for you. I want a boat with good accommodation and sea-keeping qualities for the long haul and don't expect to buy another boat. Ever. (he said).
e). It is a falacy that ferro is uninsurable. Finding a surveyor qualified to pass an opinion may be more of a test, but the insurance companies are generally happy to take your money.
g). Substantial damage to a ferro hull is probably easier to repair than most other media. If the steel work is not exposed it will generally be a surface skim. Exposed armature (rebar) and mesh is cut out if gone to rust with new armature welded in and mesh interleaved. Technology has moved on significantly on the use of repair mortar. We have moved on from portland cement and sand, through a mix with vinyl to cement and epoxy mix. I use a commercially available product, developed to repair motorway bridges after collisions.
h). On-going maintenance should work out substantially cheaper than for fibre-glass, wood, alloy and certainly steel. Occasionally a strand of mesh will bleed rust on the hull. I just grind it down to clean metail, apply rust neutraliser and a coat of Zinga then fill with mortar and repaint. Rubber chloride paint is recommended for new hulls but I use anything that takes my fancy. The hull is presently done with Toplac. Only the steering gear and prop is protected with anodes. None of the through-hull fittings (bronze) are wired.
i). Interior bulkheads will be in ply through bolted onto ferro dams, so there should be no problem routing cables and pipes. Adding through-hull fittings is interesting. Sods law says that wherever you choose it will have a section of armature under the surface which will need to be side-stepped. On decks I have cut out small sections of armature but I would be reluctant to do it on the hull. A hammer drill and wire cutters are usually sufficient and I have never had the surrounding material break up, even when having to resort to a cold chisel. A recommendation for major structural repairs is to hold a lump hammer on one side of the hull and pulverise the concrete with a hammer from the other.
I hope these experiences are of help in your decision making. Overall going the ferro route has enabled me to own a boat of a size and capability which I would not be able to afford otherwise.
If I can help in any other way send a pm.
